PDA

View Full Version : Reasons why light/shadow gameplay isn't too realistic...



Pages : [1] 2

aniket_nayak
07-02-2007, 01:19 AM
Most of you probably know all of this but still I will just state it in here why the lights and shadow gameplay isn't all that realistic...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Even if you are in a very dark place, Enemies CAN see you if you are like 3 feet in front of them. Even if they don't see you while you stay put, they should definitely see you while you make a move.
<LI>Light sources as I know it have a much wider lighting range than the game shows it. For example, a bulb seems to light up only about 10 feet in radius, beyond which there is complete darkness. Now obviously thats not the case in real life. <LI>And even shadows of regular objects do not provide that much darkness as lights will reflect of walls and light even those areas to some extent.
<LI>Adding to my first point, if guards are in the dark for sometime, there eyes will adjust to the darkness and will let them see better in the dark. Unless they had been in a lit room recently, they shouldn't really have problem seeing you if you aren't taking cover. Sam wears a black suit, but say you are backed up against a white wall, people will obviously be able to recognize you unless they have night blindness.
<LI>Plus, your visibility doesn't only depend on whether you are lit or not, it also depends on whether places around you are lit. For example, there is a bulb a bit far away, and you don't fall in its lighting radius. Your visibility meter shows zero. Now if someone from behind happens to be looking at the bulb and sees a dark image of you, obviously you are not that invisible.
<LI>If you shoot out one light in a room, guards should think, damn these low quality stuffs. But if all the bulbs begin to break one after the other, they wont just say "Nothing, I am sure there is nothing here."
[/list]

IMO, this his how shadows and lightings should work

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Enemies who are close to you will see you if you are moving, no matter how dark.
<LI>If you are standing in dark area but right behind a directional light, you will be completely invisible.
<LI>Even if you stay put, but the enemies see you in front of a white wall, while their eyes are adjusted to darkness, you will still be seen
<LI>Light sources should have a larger radius and the walls should also reflect some of the light that falls on it.
<LI>It shouldn't be, how dark you are at a particular point, but how camouflaged you are in darkness from the enemy.
[/list]

But don't get me wrong, even with all these errors I still played and loved all the Splinter Cells and I still replay them countless times. I don't really play the multiplayer, but I dont see why Double Agent's sp is so much criticized. Just because they had some daylight missions. IMO, those missions rocked. I mean now, they are more challenging than the other missions where you can safely hide in a dark zone for as long as you want.

There are a couple of ways to be stealthy, one of the being in the dark. Here are some other stealth aspects that could be implemented.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Visual camouflage, being able to blend in to the environment. Another reason why SCC is gonna rock.
<LI>Stay out of line of sight. There should be more emphasis on hiding behind cover and staying out of the guards sight.
<LI>Social stealth is another wonderful thing which I am glad to see they are adding. The enemy shouldn't know that you are an enemy.
<LI>Using Alternate routes to get by guards rather than sneak through them. They already have this aspect in the other Splinter Cells but I want a tad bit more emphasis on that as well.
[/list]

I am totally for any change that makes the series more realistic. I dont want to see the light/shadow gameplay totally taken out. But I want some of these changes to be kept in mind when going about it. Plus, I still think that there will be some dark areas to hide in. dont think they will completely remove that aspect. I just dont want all the emphasis on a single stealth element. So please don't go flaming at Ubisoft because they are trying to change certain aspects. Encourage them and give them ideas as to how to make it as close to perfect as possible.

Knot3D
07-02-2007, 01:49 AM
It is and should NOT be about ultra realism. If NVG's and black suits would be so unrealistic then spec Ops and SWAT teams wouldn't use that gear in real life.

The classic gameplay mechanic is still gold.

THE missed opportunity in SC5 is that Ubi could / should have used that next gen cpu power to finally create an engine wihich :

- features realistic global illumination & lighting fall off and penumbra of light sources.
- more flexibility in light set up so nothing is in the way to create levels which both cater for shadow play AND mimic real life lit/unlit situations better

- finally enemy AI which is smart enough to see gradual light changes, casted shadows, reflections and silhouettes.

These 3 elements, taken to the next level, could have delivered 'realistic' shadow play and making it challenging at the same time ; finally delivering what past SC's kind of faked.

The SC C concept is based on copy pasting Assassin's Creed Crowd Ai into SC concept. They should have started from scratch with a completely new SC engine to deliver the 3 bullet points i mentioned.

Yet, Pro Convictioners do not seem able to imagine this.

Imagine a game where you literally have to watch out where you cast your shadow, where you have to watch that a possible enemy will see your reflection in a glass window pane and that he will react accordingly to a silhouette against a lit background. THAT would deliver the true essence of SC gameplay which it should have been from start. Of course, past games we forgive because this true concept would require next gen processing power....

which is now available ....

yet.... they, Ubi, can't be bothered to see the 'light' in that and they use the story as a mold to copy paste crowd ai into SC. Really, the cpu power which crowd Ai will now occupy, should have been used to deliver true form SC game Ai ; stealth, redefined as SC1 did. Now with Conviction, crowd Ai caters for more mainstream gameplay and thus the franchise actually loses it's unique form and it will now conform to the mainstream conservatist attitude to see classic SC as too slow, boring stealth play. So, imo, Conviction isn't innovation forward ; it's a conservative step backwards.

aniket_nayak
07-02-2007, 02:03 AM
It is and should NOT be about ultra realism. If NVG's and black suits would be so unrealistic then spec Ops and SWAT teams wouldn't use that gear in real life.

They use black suits because black suits are better to hide in the dark than white suits. Plus, just because you are wearing a black suit doesn't mean you can hide wherever you want. You can't hide in plain view and say that you are in the dark. I am not talking about ultra-realism, sometime it looks as if that all the guards suffer from a severe case of night-blindness. And I never said using an NVG would be unrealistic.


THE missed opportunity in SC5 is that Ubi could / should have used that next gen cpu power to finally create an engine wihich :

- features realistic global illumination & lighting fall off and penumbra of light sources.
- more flexibility in light set up so nothing is in the way to create levels which both cater for shadow play AND mimic real life lit/unlit situations better

- finally enemy AI which is smart enough to see gradual light changes, casted shadows, reflections and silhouettes.

The lightings of the game will be good as its next gen. It will be better to have shadow play, but then again, shouldn't be overused like in the first few SC games. Most people here think SC is all about shadow play. But its a stealth game and stealth games should have many stealth elements.


The SC C concept is based on copy pasting Assassin's Creed Crowd Ai into SC concept. They should have started from scratch with a completely new SC engine to deliver the 3 bullet points i mentioned.

I don't really like to compare games. It doesn't really matter if this game shares a few elements with another game. Why would that make this game any worse.


Imagine a game where you literally have to watch out where you cast your shadow, where you have to watch that a possible enemy will see your reflection in a glass window pane and that he will react accordingly to a silhouette against a lit background. THAT would deliver the true essence of SC gameplay which it should have been from start. Of course, past games we forgive because this true concept would require next gen processing power...

But then people would whine about how they think they are in the dark and still someone spotted them. Most people here like SC 1, 2, 3 cause you could shoot out all lights in a level and then run around without a care.

Knot3D
07-02-2007, 02:10 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:


But then people would whine about how they think they are in the dark and still someone spotted them. Most people here like SC 1, 2, 3 cause you could shoot out all lights in a level and then run around without a care.

I guess you still didn't understand my point ; which is having next power to deliver the essence of that vintage gameplay without those errors.

but eh.. i can already see in your post that you perceived SC1 as a flawed game which in turn kept you from appreciating for what it was.

aniket_nayak
07-02-2007, 02:17 AM
I guess you still didn't understand my point ; which is having next power to deliver the essence of that vintage gameplay without those errors.

Sticking to the same concept over and over againt isn't exactly a sign of progession. SC1 isn't flawed, its a very good game. But then you will have to agree that the whole series shouldn't just be a rip of the first game. Splinter Cell isn't just a game to me, its an experience. And I dont want to experience the same thing over and over again. Because it seems like all anti-covictioneers seem to want nothing more than a prettier SC.

Knot3D
07-02-2007, 02:27 AM
nothing more than a prettier version ? No ; i am saying that deliverance of true shadow play would bring a completely new experience.

i can make the same claim about Conviction like you claim about vintage SC ; it's basically a next gen Hitman and 24 game combined with prettier graphics and somewhat more coherent NPC reactions (even though those will probably show major flaws as well)

But alas... i don't think you'll change your mind. I'll cast my vote when the game rolls in ; i'll probably won't buy it.

aniket_nayak
07-02-2007, 02:40 AM
nothing more than a prettier version ? No ; i am saying that deliverance of true shadow play would bring a completely new experience.

Guards dont always patrol completely dark places you know. The first few SCs had way too many dark spots, plus it allowed you to create even more darkness by disabling lights. Real-life isn't always that dark.

Georg_Maximus
07-02-2007, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:The first few SCs had way too many dark spots, plus it allowed you to create even more darkness by disabling lights. Real-life isn't always that dark.

I think the whole demand for realism in computer games is a fairly new one and spawned from the increasingly more sophisticated graphics technology that lets the developers make games that visually look more authentic. The next-gen concept has in many cases been limited to denoting better graphics, and so new generations of gamers believe that a good next-gen game should be as close to reality as possible. That is, however, a misconception. Some of the greatest games ever made had pixelated graphics and 8-bit sound, because what the developers of those games couldn't do within the limits of latter-day graphics technology, they had to make up for by creating an appealing gameplay. Sadly, as the computer graphics got better, the effords to maintain a good gameplay deteriorated, and so the marked has become replete with visually stunning, but boring and forgetable games. Maybe the vintage SCs wasn't that realistic - precicely of those issues you point out - but their gameplay mechanics, their idea, spirit and concept made them fun and original. It's sad that Ubi doesn't utilise the next-gen possibilities to buildt upon an already awesome idea and develop those game mechanic ingredients that Knot3D mentions, and it's equally sad that this presumed "realism" of SCC (although I personally doubt it) somehow becomes more important than just keeping with an original gameplay that truly made the pre-SCDA into memorable games, regardless of how close to the real thing they were.

killerbee1992
07-02-2007, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Most of you probably know all of this but still I will just state it in here why the lights and shadow gameplay isn't all that realistic...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Even if you are in a very dark place, Enemies CAN see you if you are like 3 feet in front of them. Even if they don't see you while you stay put, they should definitely see you while you make a move.
<LI>Light sources as I know it have a much wider lighting range than the game shows it. For example, a bulb seems to light up only about 10 feet in radius, beyond which there is complete darkness. Now obviously thats not the case in real life. <LI>And even shadows of regular objects do not provide that much darkness as lights will reflect of walls and light even those areas to some extent.
<LI>Adding to my first point, if guards are in the dark for sometime, there eyes will adjust to the darkness and will let them see better in the dark. Unless they had been in a lit room recently, they shouldn't really have problem seeing you if you aren't taking cover. Sam wears a black suit, but say you are backed up against a white wall, people will obviously be able to recognize you unless they have night blindness.
<LI>Plus, your visibility doesn't only depend on whether you are lit or not, it also depends on whether places around you are lit. For example, there is a bulb a bit far away, and you don't fall in its lighting radius. Your visibility meter shows zero. Now if someone from behind happens to be looking at the bulb and sees a dark image of you, obviously you are not that invisible.
<LI>If you shoot out one light in a room, guards should think, damn these low quality stuffs. But if all the bulbs begin to break one after the other, they wont just say "Nothing, I am sure there is nothing here."
[/list]

IMO, this his how shadows and lightings should work

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Enemies who are close to you will see you if you are moving, no matter how dark.
<LI>If you are standing in dark area but right behind a directional light, you will be completely invisible.
<LI>Even if you stay put, but the enemies see you in front of a white wall, while their eyes are adjusted to darkness, you will still be seen
<LI>Light sources should have a larger radius and the walls should also reflect some of the light that falls on it.
<LI>It shouldn't be, how dark you are at a particular point, but how camouflaged you are in darkness from the enemy.
[/list]

But don't get me wrong, even with all these errors I still played and loved all the Splinter Cells and I still replay them countless times. I don't really play the multiplayer, but I dont see why Double Agent's sp is so much criticized. Just because they had some daylight missions. IMO, those missions rocked. I mean now, they are more challenging than the other missions where you can safely hide in a dark zone for as long as you want.

There are a couple of ways to be stealthy, one of the being in the dark. Here are some other stealth aspects that could be implemented.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Visual camouflage, being able to blend in to the environment. Another reason why SCC is gonna rock.
<LI>Stay out of line of sight. There should be more emphasis on hiding behind cover and staying out of the guards sight.
<LI>Social stealth is another wonderful thing which I am glad to see they are adding. The enemy shouldn't know that you are an enemy.
<LI>Using Alternate routes to get by guards rather than sneak through them. They already have this aspect in the other Splinter Cells but I want a tad bit more emphasis on that as well.
[/list]

I am totally for any change that makes the series more realistic. I dont want to see the light/shadow gameplay totally taken out. But I want some of these changes to be kept in mind when going about it. Plus, I still think that there will be some dark areas to hide in. dont think they will completely remove that aspect. I just dont want all the emphasis on a single stealth element. So please don't go flaming at Ubisoft because they are trying to change certain aspects. Encourage them and give them ideas as to how to make it as close to perfect as possible.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif i TOTALLY agree

aniket_nayak
07-02-2007, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by killerbee 1992

i TOTALLY agree

Thank you.


Originally posted by Georg_Maximus

I think the whole demand for realism in computer games is a fairly new one and spawned from the increasingly more sophisticated graphics technology that lets the developers make games that visually look more authentic. The next-gen concept has in many cases been limited to denoting better graphics, and so new generations of gamers believe that a good next-gen game should be as close to reality as possible. That is, however, a misconception. Some of the greatest games ever made had pixelated graphics and 8-bit sound, because what the developers of those games couldn't do within the limits of latter-day graphics technology, they had to make up for by creating an appealing gameplay. Sadly, as the computer graphics got better, the effords to maintain a good gameplay deteriorated, and so the marked has become replete with visually stunning, but boring and forgetable games. Maybe the vintage SCs wasn't that realistic - precicely of those issues you point out - but their gameplay mechanics, their idea, spirit and concept made them fun and original. It's sad that Ubi doesn't utilise the next-gen possibilities to buildt upon an already awesome idea and develop those game mechanic ingredients that Knot3D mentions, and it's equally sad that this presumed "realism" of SCC (although I personally doubt it) somehow becomes more important than just keeping with an original gameplay that truly made the pre-SCDA into memorable games, regardless of how close to the real thing they were.

I see your point. But don't you think new gameplay = new experience. Are you just scared to try out something new? Who knows you might like it.

I also hear that you can get high-tech gadgets from the black market. So whats the problem. They are not deleting that aspect. In fact they are just emphasising on other aspects as well.

Instead of bashing Ubisoft for changing the game, why not help them by giving them more ideas?

NuclearDragon
07-02-2007, 07:50 AM
ubisoft isnt allowed to use ideas from the boards read their faq

Hiddai
07-02-2007, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Most of you probably know all of this but still I will just state it in here why the lights and shadow gameplay isn't all that realistic...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Even if you are in a very dark place, Enemies CAN see you if you are like 3 feet in front of them. Even if they don't see you while you stay put, they should definitely see you while you make a move.
<LI>Light sources as I know it have a much wider lighting range than the game shows it. For example, a bulb seems to light up only about 10 feet in radius, beyond which there is complete darkness. Now obviously thats not the case in real life. <LI>And even shadows of regular objects do not provide that much darkness as lights will reflect of walls and light even those areas to some extent.
<LI>Adding to my first point, if guards are in the dark for sometime, there eyes will adjust to the darkness and will let them see better in the dark. Unless they had been in a lit room recently, they shouldn't really have problem seeing you if you aren't taking cover. Sam wears a black suit, but say you are backed up against a white wall, people will obviously be able to recognize you unless they have night blindness.
<LI>Plus, your visibility doesn't only depend on whether you are lit or not, it also depends on whether places around you are lit. For example, there is a bulb a bit far away, and you don't fall in its lighting radius. Your visibility meter shows zero. Now if someone from behind happens to be looking at the bulb and sees a dark image of you, obviously you are not that invisible.
<LI>If you shoot out one light in a room, guards should think, damn these low quality stuffs. But if all the bulbs begin to break one after the other, they wont just say "Nothing, I am sure there is nothing here."
[/list]

IMO, this his how shadows and lightings should work

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Enemies who are close to you will see you if you are moving, no matter how dark.
<LI>If you are standing in dark area but right behind a directional light, you will be completely invisible.
<LI>Even if you stay put, but the enemies see you in front of a white wall, while their eyes are adjusted to darkness, you will still be seen
<LI>Light sources should have a larger radius and the walls should also reflect some of the light that falls on it.
<LI>It shouldn't be, how dark you are at a particular point, but how camouflaged you are in darkness from the enemy.
[/list]

But don't get me wrong, even with all these errors I still played and loved all the Splinter Cells and I still replay them countless times. I don't really play the multiplayer, but I dont see why Double Agent's sp is so much criticized. Just because they had some daylight missions. IMO, those missions rocked. I mean now, they are more challenging than the other missions where you can safely hide in a dark zone for as long as you want.

There are a couple of ways to be stealthy, one of the being in the dark. Here are some other stealth aspects that could be implemented.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Visual camouflage, being able to blend in to the environment. Another reason why SCC is gonna rock.
<LI>Stay out of line of sight. There should be more emphasis on hiding behind cover and staying out of the guards sight.
<LI>Social stealth is another wonderful thing which I am glad to see they are adding. The enemy shouldn't know that you are an enemy.
<LI>Using Alternate routes to get by guards rather than sneak through them. They already have this aspect in the other Splinter Cells but I want a tad bit more emphasis on that as well.
[/list]

I am totally for any change that makes the series more realistic. I dont want to see the light/shadow gameplay totally taken out. But I want some of these changes to be kept in mind when going about it. Plus, I still think that there will be some dark areas to hide in. dont think they will completely remove that aspect. I just dont want all the emphasis on a single stealth element. So please don't go flaming at Ubisoft because they are trying to change certain aspects. Encourage them and give them ideas as to how to make it as close to perfect as possible.

I agree man but i think it's pretty much about the AI too if the AI is good the more realistic the game would be =)

Woosy
07-02-2007, 09:02 AM
Sorry but I disagree, if it's night time, like it usually is in the SC world and you have the light on inside and someone is outside and you look out the window, it is very hard to see them. The same happens outside if there is a strong light source, your pupils close letting in less light this is general biology, it's harder to see past that light source especially if the light is bright. Your pupils open more in the dark, without light but this doesn't mean you can see in pitch black darkness which is impossible without the aid of Night Vision devices.

In Chaos Theory the lighthouse mission, the chances of being seen is plausable there is moonlight, but when Sam was in the cavenetwork especially across the bridge with all light sources destroyed you wouldn't be able to see, and for the AI to pull out a flare, like they do they would find it hard to see past the light source so kinda useless for them unless they lit a few and threw them around.

In a pitch black room or forest you cannot see anything not even your hand, with Night Vision you can. This is well documented and something you can try by yourself, just find a room with no windows and turn off all light sources, you cannot see anything at all. And if I was in that position as an enemy I would panic.

The reason why S.W.A.T teams and special forces wear black and gas masks is because they can ID themselves secondly it's intimidating, you breach a stronghold and when someone see's you they panic, enough time for the operator to take the bad guy down. The other thing you say enemies can see in the dark? You must have inhuman eye sight, because when our S019 and SAS breach a building at night perferably, they cut all power to that building, why? Because it's difficult if not impossible for the enemy to see depending on the building and it disorinates especially when flash bangs and other devices are going off, especially buildings that have barricaded all the windows up and there isn't any light sources. If you ever been down a sewer it's impossible to see down there without the aid of a torch.

So no not all enemies can't see depending on building and the light source, also same goes for SWAT teams with 15 million candle power torches off their car that shine the light in bad guy faces, they simply cannot see past the light source it's far too powerful for human eyes to adust, all you can see is light and a black blur around the edges of the light. The pupils would have to open more, but we know from biology this won't happen as it's a natural response to light.

I don't think it's fair you can make a critique to the light/dark mechanic but not critque anwhere else in the game, thats pretty poor. For example, you say the light/dark is flawed? I would likewise say the dynamic crowd is also, Sam Fisher looks more suspicious then anyone else in that crowd, because hes standing next to stangers, they're questioning him, realistically he would be questioned and fighting more cops off then walking through, to be inconspicious is being yourself which is walking through a crowd minding your own business, you do the Sam Fisher thing IRL and see how quick the police come your way.

I've played the Hitman games, and if you keep standing next to someone like Sam does they run off and find the guards, so either way if you kill them or not, you're compromised, Hitman does it a great deal better in my opinion. I think comparing games is a great thing to do, some games do things better then others and you can form an opinion off it. Knot3D's point of Assassin's creed being copied and pasted onto Splinter Cell is a poor thing really, it shows they haven't put alot of effort into it. In assassin's creed you have the dynamic crowd thats great, but copying altairs signature hero vision mode, where the screen turns white and he can see good or bad guys is poor in the realistic world, the game isn't mean't to be sci-fi in Splinter Cell.

I don't see why they couldn't use the system they have now with the mechanic of light/dark, it's not hard to do.. But all in all I think this game will alienate a HUGE fan base that was there before, and gain a new crowd who wern't really into Splinter Cell not because the dakr/light, but simply because they prefer an action orintated game rather then stealth, like they say ligh/dark is just the mechanic.

You also say Splinter Cell is an experience and it should evolve, I agree with the two, but Splinter Cell had a foundation. This foundation is part of the experience, let me explain. Sam Fisher is a secret agent in a secret organisation called 3rd Echelon, he works with his team. His ability to work with his team to work to goals is part of the experience, you remove that the experience is gone. If you remove him doing covert missions for the better good, the experience is gone. If you remove the the soul concept that the game was based on 3 ringed goggles which are iconic and the light/dark mechanic the experience is gone, it's not even Splinter Cell in the same sence without the goggles. With conviction you have a new experience, this I think you want? But removing the originality of the franchise removes the experience that was great about the game. So I can't agree with all your points some don't work and some of the new features are equally flawed like light/dark.

Can games be the same and evolve? Check MGS, Hitman, Thief those games have eolved and been consistent since their inception while keeping within the foundation of the game, and are well recieved to this day. Do you think Splinter Cell can do that, with Double Agent being a flop as it was, and this new game untested? I don't think so myself.

insanity76
07-02-2007, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by Woosy:
In Chaos Theory the lighthouse mission, the chances of being seen is plausable there is moonlight, but when Sam was in the cavenetwork especially across the bridge with all light sources destroyed you wouldn't be able to see, and for the AI to pull out a flare, like they do they would find it hard to see past the light source so kinda useless for them unless they lit a few and threw them around.

The biggest Lighthouse flaw was Sam not getting lit up and visible when lightning struck. You could be standing 2 feet in front of a guard, him looking in your direction, flash of lightning, you're not seen. Montreal could've taken some pointers from Shanghai about lightning effects on the gameplay (though Shanghai could've taken some pointers from meteorologists about lightning striking before the thunder roll, lol).

aniket_nayak
07-02-2007, 09:51 AM
Sorry but I disagree, if it's night time, like it usually is in the SC world and you have the light on inside and someone is outside and you look out the window, it is very hard to see them. The same happens outside if there is a strong light source, your pupils close letting in less light this is general biology, it's harder to see past that light source especially if the light is bright. Your pupils open more in the dark, without light but this doesn't mean you can see in pitch black darkness which is impossible.

I did mention that you would be invisible to guards who are in a lit room themselves. But guards whos eyes are adjusted to darkness should see you no problem. You can replay the SC games and you will realise that. And BTW, it takes less than 30 seconds to adjust the pupil. And about the absolute darkness, well, even if there is a light source a bit far off, you cannot create absolute darkness.

Where I live there are frequent powercuts, I am still able to see in the dark even if something moves slightly. I will be blinded for the first 30 seconds or so but then I do have a lot of rods in my retina and they are more sensitive to motion than cones.

And its not possible to be completely invisible when you hid in shadows cast by things like pillars and similar objects. Because light will reflect of walls and illuminate the whole room as a whole.

Yes while hiding in the dark it is difficult and nearly impossible to see from a distance. But when you are so close, you will be able to make out if someone is in front of you.

And you can always see silouhettes of things when the background is lit.


In a pitch black room or forest you cannot see anything not even your hand, with Night Vision you can. This is well documented and something you can try by yourself, just find a room with no windows and turn off all light sources, you cannot see anything at all. And if I was in that position as an enemy I would panic.

Night Vision Goggles, only amplify the light signals. It works somewhat by collecting photons and photoelectrically emitting electrons and then amplifying the no of electrons which falls on a flouroscent substance and produces the image. So in complete darkness even NVGs wont work.


I don't think it's fair you can make a critique to the light/dark mechanic but not critque anwhere else in the game, thats pretty poor. For example, you say the light/dark is flawed? I would likewise say the dynamic crowd is also, Sam Fisher looks more suspicious then anyone else in that crowd, because hes standing next to stangers, they're questioning him, realistically he would be questioned and fighting more cops off then walking through, to be inconspicious is being yourself which is walking through a crowd minding your own business, you do the Sam Fisher thing IRL and see how quick the police come your way

Game isn't released. No one has the right to comment on that. 5 minutes of footage isn't enough to judge a game. And by the way, you cant stand too close to the same person or follow him for long. They will get suspicious as well. You seem to have seen everything crowd stealth in this game has to offer 7 months before its release.


You also say Splinter Cell is an experience and it should evolve, I agree with the two, but Splinter Cell had a foundation. This foundation is part of the experience, let me explain. Sam Fisher is a secret agent in a secret organisation called 3rd Echelon, he works with his team. His ability to work with his team to work to goals is part of the experience, you remove that the experience is gone. If you remove him doing covert missions for the better good, the experience is gone. If you remove the the soul concept that the game was based on 3 ringed goggles which are iconic and the light/dark mechanic the experience is gone, it's not even Splinter Cell in the same sence without the goggles. With conviction you have a new experience, this I think you want? But removing the originality of the franchise removes the experience that was great about the game. So I can't agree with all your points some don't work and some of the new features are equally flawed like light/dark.

So according to you Sam should always take orders from 3E for the rest of his life. He can't make decisions on his own. He should always be spoon-fed. I think otherwise.

But I do agree that taking out the goggles was not a very good step. But I have gotten over it.


Can games be the same and evolve? Check MGS, Hitman, Thief those games have been consistent since their inception while keeping within the foundation of the game, and are well recieved to this day, do you think Splinter Cell can do that, with Double Agent being a flop as it was?

Agreed many people thought Double Agent was flop. But many other people (who can accept things as they are) thought otherwise.

Things aren't always as per our liking. Its about accepting things as they are. Since you cannot accept Conviction for what it is, you will not enjoy it. It wont matter to me. I couldn't care less. I will enjoy the game and you wont. So who's loss is it?

CoastalGirl
07-02-2007, 10:19 AM
I don't care about realism; I care about how fun the game is to play. A very realistic game would probably be insanely hard, and thus, no fun for someone like me.

aniket_nayak
07-02-2007, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by CoastalGirl

I don't care about realism; I care about how fun the game is to play. A very realistic game would probably be insanely hard, and thus, no fun for someone like me.


The game need not be insanely hard. They can add lot of ways to sneak past people. And lot of places to hide behind. And the shadow gameplay can be used more realisticly at someplaces. Plus when a guard is looking at you, stay put and hide in the shadows. When he looks away make a move. That doesn't sound insanely hard to me.

Woosy
07-02-2007, 10:42 AM
So according to you Sam should always take orders from 3E for the rest of his life. He can't make decisions on his own. He should always be spoon-fed. I think otherwise.

He is a soldier, many soldiers I know find it hard to quit the army, many here say it's hard and to explain why they're still there tell me I'll never understand. Sam has been this way since the start with his Wife and Daughter, infact if you go back you will see, this is one of the reasons why they split up and their marriage went down hill. You even see it at the end of the first game where he wanted to quit, but gets the phone call and it's back to business again. If Sam could make up his own mind he would of quit a long time ago for real to be with his daughter, we know this is something he can't quit, it's his life.


Night Vision Goggles, only amplify the light signals. It works somewhat by collecting photons and photoelectrically emitting electrons and then amplifying the no of electrons which falls on a flouroscent substance and produces the image. So in complete darkness even NVGs wont work.

There are many types of image devices Night Vision and Heat, with heat it can look multi coloured or white they do the same thing, you can see at night and dark rooms. Night Vision uses a small amount of light and magifys it yes, but you have to say if you need night vision to see then the other person cannot see you without the use of these aids also. Heard the saying if you can see the enemy they can see you too? We know Sam has NVG and heat along with Electrical view, we also know the bad guys use heat vision in Bathouse.


Game isn't released. No one has the right to comment on that. 5 minutes of footage isn't enough to judge a game. And by the way, you cant stand too close to the same person or follow him for long. They will get suspicious as well. You seem to have seen everything crowd stealth in this game has to offer 7 months before its release.

Excuse me, but I can form an opinion on something thank you very much, and I can comment on it and make my own critque off it. You have made your own, and the game isn't even out yet either. Many did this with Double Agent and they're to this day going I told you so. My point from looking at the game everyone stares at you, this has been a common trend in all the splinter cell games, it's not a technological issue that can't be solved, otherwise other games would have this problem too. The way it is, has been explained it is like frogger that is from the devs mouth by the way, how is it like frogger? Well you jump from one person to another person hiding behind them, this looks suspicious, this is also the new game mechanic they're implementing this isn't going to change as the crowd dynamic is a big part of the gameplay now.


Agreed many people thought Double Agent was flop. But many other people (who can accept things as they are) thought otherwise.

Well let me tell you something there is no thinking here, behind the scenes Double agent did poorly as a Moderator at the time, it was poorly recieved, the devs know it and said it themselves. You can have a minority enjoy it, but the fact that it wasn't as well recieved as Chaos Theory, that should speak volume to you.


Where I live there are frequent powercuts, I am still able to see in the dark even if something moves slightly. I will be blinded for the first 30 seconds or so but then I do have a lot of rods in my retina and they are more sensitive to motion than cones.

Ditto, where I live we get constant power outs and brownouts. I can still see because the moonlight outside, it's very bight, it comes through my windows, so there is always some light. However when I'm up in my music studio and the lights go off I can't see anything period! I nearly have to get on hands and knees to get out the room, even my pet dog who doesn't have the same type of eyes cats do for seeing in dark, has trouble and you can hear him bump his head into things lol. Also I dunno if you have been to many concerts? But when the lights go off to bring the Artist on stage you can't see anything, until people either pull out their phones or the band comes on stage. Darkness is a problem, in America now they issue NVG's to people who work in cinemas lol to catch pirates who are only a few feet away, you think about target aquistion and Identification in that setting and it's very hard without image aids.

marinius
07-02-2007, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by killerbee 1992

i TOTALLY agree

Thank you.


Originally posted by Georg_Maximus

I think the whole demand for realism in computer games is a fairly new one and spawned from the increasingly more sophisticated graphics technology that lets the developers make games that visually look more authentic. The next-gen concept has in many cases been limited to denoting better graphics, and so new generations of gamers believe that a good next-gen game should be as close to reality as possible. That is, however, a misconception. Some of the greatest games ever made had pixelated graphics and 8-bit sound, because what the developers of those games couldn't do within the limits of latter-day graphics technology, they had to make up for by creating an appealing gameplay. Sadly, as the computer graphics got better, the effords to maintain a good gameplay deteriorated, and so the marked has become replete with visually stunning, but boring and forgetable games. Maybe the vintage SCs wasn't that realistic - precicely of those issues you point out - but their gameplay mechanics, their idea, spirit and concept made them fun and original. It's sad that Ubi doesn't utilise the next-gen possibilities to buildt upon an already awesome idea and develop those game mechanic ingredients that Knot3D mentions, and it's equally sad that this presumed "realism" of SCC (although I personally doubt it) somehow becomes more important than just keeping with an original gameplay that truly made the pre-SCDA into memorable games, regardless of how close to the real thing they were.

I see your point. But don't you think new gameplay = new experience. Are you just scared to try out something new? Who knows you might like it.

I also hear that you can get high-tech gadgets from the black market. So whats the problem. They are not deleting that aspect. In fact they are just emphasising on other aspects as well.

Instead of bashing Ubisoft for changing the game, why not help them by giving them more ideas? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is any of what Georg_Maximus wrote bashing Ubisoft? You and a few other guys around here seem to use that term rather loosely. The fact that someone disagrees with your opinion on the upcoming game doesn't mean they're bashing the game. Please accept that anyone who can back up their opinion and state it in an intelligible manner has as much a right to do so as you do.

New gameplay = new experience? Yes, it obviously does. If I want a different experience altogether I'll go play a different game. What I don't want is for the series I truly love playing to toss its core gameplay out the window. Hard to comprehend? It shouldn't be.

As for giving Ubi ideas, well, in these forums float a lot of ideas from people who aren't impressed with what Ubi's shown so far. People who neither whine about nor bash the game in any conceivable way.

aniket_nayak
07-02-2007, 01:10 PM
Every eye has a bit of night-vision in it. When the ambient light is low, not only does your pupil expand, but also your rod cells become active while the cones take a time out.

Rod-cells are sensitive enough to respond to even a single photon of light! They are more than hundred times more sensitive than cones to light. Rod cells are less concentrated near the centre of the retina(fovea). But the main point I want to emphasize is that rod cells are very sensitive to movement under dark conditions. Thats is the reason why when you are completely in a dark room, slight movement can catch your attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell for more info

So what I am saying here is that, it might be very difficult for guards to spot someone in the dark, but not too hard to catch someone moving.

You maybe able to create complete darkness in a music theatre because its such an enclosed place and there is absolutely no source of light. But in other places its not the case. Even a single light source placed placed far away can let you navigate around. And in a closed space, even the light from the bottom of a door can light the place enough for you to navigate. In indoors, one light is enough to light up the place. Light reflects off objects and diffuses off small openings you know.

I can understand if the guards see Sam but not shoot him until they ID him, but not able to see him at all is a bit unrealistic. It should be like, if the guard is just walking past you, he should not notice you if you are staying put. But if the guard looks in your direction for sometime, he should figure out that he's got company. But anyways, why do guards patrol areas with such terribly bad lighting?


He is a soldier, many soldiers I know find it hard to quit the army, many here say it's hard and to explain why they're still there tell me I'll never understand. Sam has been this way since the start with his Wife and Daughter, infact if you go back you will see, this is one of the reasons why they split up and their marriage went down hill. You even see it at the end of the first game where he wanted to quit, but gets the phone call and it's back to business again. If Sam could make up his own mind he would of quit a long time ago for real to be with his daughter, we know this is something he can't quit, it's his life.

But when 3E starts going corrupt I dont expect Sam to stick to it. After all Sam has a mind of his own and his own morals and values. He is nobody's fool. Sam joined 3E for a reason, to help people. He isn't just 3E's tool to get things done. And one of the main intentions in SCC is to build a hero out of Sam.


There are many types of image devices Night Vision and Heat, with heat it can look multi coloured or white they do the same thing, you can see at night and dark rooms. Night Vision uses a small amount of light and magifys it yes, but you have to say if you need night vision to see then the other person cannot see you without the use of these aids also. Heard the saying if you can see the enemy they can see you too? We know Sam has NVG and heat along with Electrical view, we also know the bad guys use heat vision in Bathouse.

Yeah, but heat vision has a very limited range because intensity of radations follows an inverse square law with respect to distance.


Excuse me, but I can form an opinion on something thank you very much, and I can comment on it and make my own critque off it. You have made your own, and the game isn't even out yet either. Many did this with Double Agent and they're to this day going I told you so. My point from looking at the game everyone stares at you, this has been a common trend in all the splinter cell games, it's not a technological issue that can't be solved, otherwise other games would have this problem too. The way it is, has been explained it is like frogger that is from the devs mouth by the way, how is it like frogger? Well you jump from one person to another person hiding behind them, this looks suspicious, this is also the new game mechanic they're implementing this isn't going to change as the crowd dynamic is a big part of the gameplay now.

You can always form an opinion about something, but having a bad opinion about something you haven't even seen completely is a form of pessimism. And seriously, I dont see how pessimism works.

Even due to these few unrealistic aspects which I have pointed out earlier, I still luv all the Splinter Cells. I just dont get bored. Its so damn good. Even Double Agent. I seriously dont see why people hated it. Bottomline is all Splinter Cell games rock. And Ubisoft IMO are one of the most creative game developers. So I know the devs will come up with something great. There is nothing wrong in seeing the core gameplay change. Since now Sam is in a different place, he will have to use different techniques to overcome the odds. Before he used to infiltrate enemy buildings and sneak past guards. Now he is in a different place.

If I wanted to play light/shadow mechanics with NVG and cool Echelon gadgets, I will play the previous games. There are already four of them with each having around 10-12 missions. So I will still enjoy them even after playing them countless times. If I want to play something different, I will play SCC.

But then again, I would love to see another Splinter Cell, possibly SC6 use light/shadows to an extent and make it more realistic.


Originally posted by marinius

New gameplay = new experience? Yes, it obviously does. If I want a different experience altogether I'll go play a different game. What I don't want is for the series I truly love playing to toss its core gameplay out the window. Hard to comprehend? It shouldn't be.

SCC is a different game.


As for giving Ubi ideas, well, in these forums float a lot of ideas from people who aren't impressed with what Ubi's shown so far. People who neither whine about nor bash the game in any conceivable way.

Things like "Ubisoft ruined this game", "Splinter Cell is dead", "This game will suck", etc... does sound like bashing to me.

BurningDeath.
07-02-2007, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Game isn't released. No one has the right to comment on that. 5 minutes of footage isn't enough to judge a game. And by the way, you cant stand too close to the same person or follow him for long. They will get suspicious as well. You seem to have seen everything crowd stealth in this game has to offer 7 months before its release.
What a joke. We can very well judge the game by what we have seen yet, why shouldnt we?


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
So according to you Sam should always take orders from 3E for the rest of his life. He can't make decisions on his own. He should always be spoon-fed.
Sounds good to me!

But I do agree that taking out the goggles was not a very good step. But I have gotten over it.


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Agreed many people thought Double Agent was flop. But many other people (who can accept things as they are) thought otherwise.

Things aren't always as per our liking. Its about accepting things as they are. Since you cannot accept Conviction for what it is, you will not enjoy it. It wont matter to me. I couldn't care less. I will enjoy the game and you wont. So who's loss is it?
I don't think it's about enjoying the game or not. We might also like the new gameplay, but there is still the other side of the medal, which shows that there is no more of the light&shadow-gameplay that made Splinter Cell for us.

aniket_nayak
07-02-2007, 01:21 PM
What a joke. We can very well judge the game by what we have seen yet, why shouldnt we?

Woosy, complained about the new system being unrealistic as well. We can't really comment on that right now IMO. We can comment on the game as a whole, but saying that this new system is IMO is just prejudice.



I don't think it's about enjoying the game or not. We might also like the new gameplay, but there is still the other side of the medal, which shows that there is no more of the light&shadow-gameplay that made Splinter Cell for us

There are 40+ missions in the previous games to replay and they still rock.

BurningDeath.
07-02-2007, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
But when 3E starts going corrupt I dont expect Sam to stick to it. After all Sam has a mind of his own and his own morals and values. He is nobody's fool. Sam joined 3E for a reason, to help people. He isn't just 3E's tool to get things done. And one of the main intentions in SCC is to build a hero out of Sam.
Screw the story of SCC, they only made it up to fit the new gameplay. If they had made another light&shadow-sequel, the story would have been different and he will hopefully be back in his real business in SC.


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
You can always form an opinion about something, but having a bad opinion about something you haven't even seen completely is a form of pessimism.
Oh...I have seen some gameplay videos that gave me a good idea of what it could be like, 'nuff said. How is it pessimism if I critisize the things I have seen?


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
SCC is a different game.
Yep, so it shouldn't be called "Splinter Cell" - make it Sam Fisher's CONVICTION and everyone would be happy.

aniket_nayak
07-02-2007, 01:31 PM
Yep, so it shouldn't be called "Splinter Cell" - make it Sam Fisher's CONVICTION and everyone would be happy.

But then, some great person once said "Name means nothing on the battlefield", "Name's not important". But then seriously, we aren't exactly suppose to decide the name of this game whatsoever it is.

marinius
07-02-2007, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by marinius

New gameplay = new experience? Yes, it obviously does. If I want a different experience altogether I'll go play a different game. What I don't want is for the series I truly love playing to toss its core gameplay out the window. Hard to comprehend? It shouldn't be.

SCC is a different game.


As for giving Ubi ideas, well, in these forums float a lot of ideas from people who aren't impressed with what Ubi's shown so far. People who neither whine about nor bash the game in any conceivable way.

Things like "Ubisoft ruined this game", "Splinter Cell is dead", "This game will suck", etc... does sound like bashing to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know you're trying to be clever buddy, but splitting hairs won't make you seem any more enlightened. SCC is another game in a franchise, the game is still called Splinter Cell - hence it shouldn't be a completely different game.

As for the remarks that sound like bashing to you, guess what - they sound like bashing to me too. But that's not what you referred to as bashing in the post to which I was responding.

What's worse, you don't even comment on what's being stated in the quotation you're citing. There are lots of ideas in these forums. You either haven't bothered to read them, you can't comprehend them because they differ from yours, or, and this is perhaps more likely, you're nothing but a dilettante.

aniket_nayak
07-02-2007, 01:56 PM
And you are nothing but a pessimist.

And just because its a franchise doesn't mean that they should stick to a single gameplay. I mean if gameplay is restricted to something, even the story would be restricted and finally we would just end up playing a prettier SC. I have enough of the previous titles to keep me happy for the next few years.

Woosy
07-02-2007, 02:18 PM
Woosy, complained about the new system being unrealistic as well. We can't really comment on that right now IMO.

Sorry hun, but it's one out of many things that are unrealistic. Have you got a white vision that can see good people and bad people? Is it even possible, only clairvoyants maybe.. I don't have a problem with that in Assassin's Creed because thats a different game entirely using different mechanics. When you take Assassin's Creed and stick Splinter Cell on it, you know thats not going to work, and it's an insult to our inteligence.

As for being in a pitch black room and being able to see something, can you see a target 10ft away make an accurate Identification in a matter of 1-2 seconds to pull the trigger? I don't think so. Imagine intensifiers can see up to miles not just feet, I see police videos on all the time using IR, they work similar to NVG and pick up heat, but hey just look up google for nightime airstrike videos from cockpit cam dropping bombs over baghdad at 20,000ft.

Being pessimist works well, you see this is how it works. You don't get your hopes up you take what you know and form an opinion, if you play the game and it sucks you don't feel dissapointed, if it rocks well all the merrier, being a pessimist is a win win. I've been an optimist with ubisoft products for a very long time since 1998, I play more then SC, but R6 and GR, and the general trend across the board is the same, "why are they changing what worked well?" It's alienated the fan bases of those games too, while gamers like yourself go it rocks it rocks! This is something you can see by being in those communities from the start, and the general atmosphere of them.

When Double Agent was showing video's the same was said, can't comment until you play a demo, so they waited and waited, got a demo and complained, major complaints, bugs, 4 levels with JBA, mini-games that where horrible traffic light on his back and being able to be seen easily when the trafic lights where saying green. Before the game came out there where complaints about daylight missions, the same complaint is being aired now, to just totally ignore peoples complaints on that major scale especially before the data purge in feb is just ignorance. The samething is happening here, you haven't played the demo wait for it and then form an opinion, oint is their opinions they formed before the game came out where spot on.

So I ask you this, if people play the demo and the full game and have the same complaints, what does that tell you? Maybe they're doing the wrong thing at Ubisoft? When SCCT came out in 2005 the only complaints was SvM not being patched properly, co-op not working reliably and a few minor sp bugs, general atmosphere on this forum was great a community helping each other and laughter. I think the worst you got was people saying "Dm mode sucks" look at it now after 2 years, such a big difference in general opinions and confidence in this franchise. I make my opinions based on experience from 2005 knowledge and outlook, and to be honest thats why to me it looks grim.

If you're excited about the game that is absolutely fine, but like anyone who is an optimist they should take your own advice and wait till they play the game. Or do what i do wait for more information and form an opinion. I don't like being told I have to wait for something when it's being presented in the way that it is.. Especially developers who question how their own game works, it's like going up to an arms manufacturer and them going our rifles are great we changed how they worked, but they jam so we don't really know if they're that good.... would you like to buy one?

aniket_nayak
07-02-2007, 02:40 PM
As for being in a pitch black room and being able to see something, can you see a target 10ft away make an accurate Identification in a matter of 1-2 seconds to pull the trigger?
You dont shoot, but you would atleast try and find out what it is. But in the game, the guards dont even get suspicious if you are moving around right in front of them.


Being pessimist works well, you see this is how it works. You don't get your hopes up you take what you know and form an opinion, if you play the game and it sucks you don't feel dissapointed, if it rocks well all the merrier, being a pessimist is a win win.

Actually optimists look at the bright side of things. So even if the game came out and it wasn't that good. They will still find some good in it. While pessimists are like, months before the game is out they think it will suck and then even if the game was good, well it would suck to them. If you really not dissappointed, why does your posts show otherwise. Optimism is a good quality while pessimism is not. Its not an opinion, its a fact.

Yeah, but then no one is forcing you to play this game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Its all upto you. But lemme tell you one thing, you will be missing out something great IMO.

Woosy
07-02-2007, 03:29 PM
You dont shoot, but you would atleast try and find out what it is. But in the game, the guards dont even get suspicious if you are moving around right in front of them.

Yes they do! This is what i've said in like 4-5 posts, play SCCT do the lighthouse mission get to the door where you hear molgenholt being tortured, shoot out the light, put on your NVG's and grab the pipe and wait, when the guy comes to inspect a dark area, which is silly without the aid of a flashlight, watch him watlk past you he looks up at you, but doesn't do anything about it, just goes "ah must be nothing" It's a flaw thats in all the games to date, the AI will stare at you in pitch black darkness and, me and my friends are like well how can you see us? They don't react to you but know you are there.


Actually optimists look at the bright side of things. So even if the game came out and it wasn't that good. They will still find some good in it. While pessimists are like, months before the game is out they think it will suck and then even if the game was good, well it would suck to them. If you really not dissappointed, why does your posts show otherwise. Optimism is a good quality while pessimism is not. Its not an opinion, its a fact.

I have said I'm unhappy with the change of the game, this is an observation and a fact, with the main things gone in the game, it's hard to be optimistic, put it this way if you changed Halo to be like Splinter Cell there would be an uproar, regardless if you where an optimist or not, thats just how things are. I don't agree all pessimists will say the game will suck when it comes out, if the game comes out and proves it's worth and them wrong it will change their opinion, if it doesn't it won't a great game is a subjective thing and differs person to person. For example I don't like Zelda never have never will get into it, people say it's a great game, I can't get into it so how can is ay it's a great game when I don't like it? I've played it in the early 90's and played their latest creation with an open mind, not my cup of tea. You might want to follow the R6 community who hated the 3rd person view, due to the fact R6 always has been a first person game, majority of posters pessimists. The game came out and the majority enjoyed it, before the massive bugs came to light.

Plus if you want me to be optimistic you have to give me something to be optimistic about, developers who question their own game design doesn't do that nor does anyone who questions their creative work, it doesn't show confidence. I mean take Artists most go this is the greatest work I've done to date to hype it up and put out some positive vibes, i would be hmmm, ok sounds good I'll check it out. Same with bands who say they're going with another sound like lostprophets who say they're going back to their root's and the music will be catchy and their video updates are never questioning themselves, that makes me excited! If however they said yeah we're putting out an album should be ok, I would think differently.

Again I've been optimistic for many games by ubi since 98', and many of Ubisoft games have not just let me down but other fans of the series who have been hardcore fans for 7 years on other games. It's their job to put out PR to make it look good and gain our confidence that they can do a good job. I can make critical points on what i've seen to date and If I don't like them thats my opinion and I can point them out and see if people share them and many here do. Basically you're saying If I get something thats poor quality like GRAW on the PC I should look for the brightsides, yet the game is full of flaws and isn't enjoyable from my experience and my friends too. Are you saying I should force myself to like something I don't? And if so why would you play something you don't like? I'm not stubburn, if this game comes out and is awesome I'll be here saying it's awesome, but right now there is nothing to be optimistic about on whats shown thats all.

aniket_nayak
07-02-2007, 03:47 PM
Plus if you want me to be optimistic you have to give me something to be optimistic about, developers who question their own game design doesn't do that nor does anyone who questions their creative work, it doesn't show confidence.

Here are somethings to be optimistic about.
The new stealth system.
The fully-interactive environment.
Better storyline.
Better graphics, lightings and shadow effects.
New improvised gameplay.
More variety to the series.
Having to use your wits.
Not having to play the whole game in black and white.

Well these are some good aspects I can think of right now. Its almost 3 am here (where I stay) so can't make myself to come up with more.



Basically you're saying If I get something thats poor quality like GRAW on the PC I should look for the brightsides, yet the game is full of flaws and isn't enjoyable from my experience and friends too, are you saying I should force myself to like something I don't? And if so why would you play something you don't like.

No, I am not asking you to look for the bright sides. Neither am I forcing you to play this game. I am just telling you that you will miss something good and that is my opinion.

CoastalGirl
07-02-2007, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by CoastalGirl

I don't care about realism; I care about how fun the game is to play. A very realistic game would probably be insanely hard, and thus, no fun for someone like me.


The game need not be insanely hard. They can add lot of ways to sneak past people. And lot of places to hide behind. And the shadow gameplay can be used more realisticly at someplaces. Plus when a guard is looking at you, stay put and hide in the shadows. When he looks away make a move. That doesn't sound insanely hard to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We already got that with DA.

aniket_nayak
07-02-2007, 04:29 PM
Yeah, so we could see it in the next game as well.

CoastalGirl
07-02-2007, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Yeah, so we could see it in the next game as well.
Next as in the one after SCC, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Stealth_chill
07-02-2007, 04:55 PM
i dont see how shanghai could mess up the core series of the next game anymore than montreal....but hell i said the same thing about montreal after DA http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Knot3D
07-02-2007, 05:04 PM
It's a SPIN OFF game !!!!

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 12:29 AM
But still a potentially good game.

And moreover I think the devs are trying to do their best to make this game less of a "trial and error" based one.

Now if your cover is blown, you can fight your way out of it, rather than reload a previous save game. Does this make sense?

BurningDeath.
07-03-2007, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
But still a potentially good game.
A good game - yes, probably - but not a Splinter Cell game.


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Now if your cover is blown, you can fight your way out of it, rather than reload a previous save game. Does this make sense?
No. Your cover shouldn't be blown in the first place.

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by BurningDeath.:

A good game - yes, probably - but not a Splinter Cell game.



And lets say Splinter Cell is somewhat a modern ninja game. Ninja's use shadows to hide, agreed. They also use the art of deception (social stealth).

And moreover this IS a Splinter Cell game cause it has got it in its name. Now its not a matter of opinion, its a fact.



No. Your cover shouldn't be blown in the first place.

In real life, things don't always go as planned.

Chinese_Bookey
07-03-2007, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
They also use the art of deception (social stealth).
Are you sure they walked around in the crowd to get where they wanted to go back in the day, you know, in ancient Japan?


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
And moreover this IS a Splinter Cell game cause it has got it in its name.
It's a game called Splinter Cell, not a Splinter Cell game. A big difference, bub. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
In real life, things don't always go as planned.
Reality is boring; we play video games to avoid it.

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 11:30 AM
Are you sure they walked around in the crowd to get where they wanted to go back in the day, you know, in ancient Japan?

They used all sorts of stealth and deception. Read the wiki article on it.


It's a game called Splinter Cell, not a Splinter Cell game. A big difference, bub.

Its a game called Splinter Cell and is still a Splinter Cell game because its still got stealth in it.


Reality is boring; we play video games to avoid it.

But then if things always go as planned, there wont be any thrill. And moreover, we play video games to experience what we will never do in real life. We will never become a superspy, but we can experience it through a realistic video game.

And BTW, Splinter Cell series is more realistic than any other stealth series out there. So according to you it should also be boring. If you find reality boring then you shouldn't even be playing Splinter Cell. Its pretty damn close to realism.

I was just giving ideas on how light/shadow gameplay can be made more reasltic.

CoastalGirl
07-03-2007, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's a game called Splinter Cell, not a Splinter Cell game. A big difference, bub.
Its a game called Splinter Cell and is still a Splinter Cell game because its still got stealth in it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not the type of stealth that the Splinter Cells [were] known for.


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
We will never become a superspy,
Speak for yourself. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 11:51 AM
Not the type of stealth that the Splinter Cells [were] known for.

So basically you want SCC to have the exact same approach at stealth as all the previous games. And then there will be a time when everyone would be bored by it and the franchise will die.

Changes are what keeps a franchise alives. Agreed that by changing the gameplay a couple of whiners will be disappointed, but a larger audience will welcome it.

But anyways, I think most of the anti-covictioneers want a prettier SC1 with more missions. But the developers themselves are too bored to do the same thing over and over again. They want a challenge. And you people are being very unsupportive.


Speak for yourself.

I am pretty sure that more than 99% of people here wont be. Dont try to be too smart.

CoastalGirl
07-03-2007, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not the type of stealth that the Splinter Cells [were] known for.
So basically you want SCC to have the exact same approach at stealth as all the previous games. And then there will be a time when everyone would be bored by it and the franchise will die.

Changes are what keeps a franchise alives. Agreed that by changing the gameplay a couple of whiners will be disappointed, but a larger audience will welcome it.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I do like the classic gameplay; why would I play the games if I didn't? BUT, that does not mean that I'm against changes that add to what I've liked. SCCT had lots of additions, and it is a GREAT game.
What little we've seen from SCC makes it pretty clear that Ubi's not adding anything. They've changed it completely.

BurningDeath.
07-03-2007, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
I do like the classic gameplay; why would I play the games if I didn't? BUT, that does not mean that I'm against changes that add to what I've liked. SCCT had lots of additions, and it is a GREAT game.
What little we've seen from SCC makes it pretty clear that Ubi's not adding anything. They've changed it completely.
That's the point.
If they just added the crowd and social stealth to the classig l&s-gameplay, I'm sure we'd be happy to try it. But to just screw the complete gameplay I loved for years in favour of Sam getting a hobbo that fights himself throught crowds is a tad too much for me.

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 12:23 PM
The devs said, "stealth isn't all about lights and shadows. Its just a mechanic.". So how are you so sure that there wont be any l&s at all. From what I have heard, only half the game will be Sam as a fugitive. Who knows what the other half has got.

But then, if it comforts you people to be apprehensive about the game, then by all means do. People who welcome the change will still enjoy the game and you people wont. Suits yourself.

MKCC14
07-03-2007, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
The devs said, "stealth isn't all about lights and shadows. Its just a mechanic.". So how are you so sure that there wont be any l&s at all. From what I have heard, only half the game will be Sam as a fugitive. Who knows what the other half has got.

But then, if it comforts you people to be apprehensive about the game, then by all means do. People who welcome the change will still enjoy the game and you people wont. Suits yourself.
Nobody said we know that their wont be any of the light & shadow gameplay in the game.

Chinese_Bookey
07-03-2007, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
is still a Splinter Cell game because its still got stealth in it.
That's questionable, because Splinter Cell, to me, was always about these three things: the shadows, the goggles, and Sam Fisher. It seems that with Conviction, Ubisoft takes away the shadows, as well as the goggles, and by doing so, they throw two-thirds of the original Splinter Cell experience out the window. Change can be good, but that sounds too sad in my ears. To each their own, I suppose.



Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
And BTW, Splinter Cell series is more realistic than any other stealth series out there. So according to you it should also be boring. If you find reality boring then you shouldn't even be playing Splinter Cell. Its pretty damn close to realism.
Yeah, well, that's relative. What is realism these days? What is "real"? What is the Matrix? Regardless, Splinter Cell isn't "realistic" to me -- at all, really. It's just uber fun, because it draws you in, deep, and that's why I love the series. I love(d) the darkness and the creeping. It can also be boring, if I want it to be, true, but I often don't (for the obvious reasons). Hahaha!



Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
But anyways, I think most of the anti-covictioneers want a prettier SC1 with more missions. But the developers themselves are too bored to do the same thing over and over again. They want a challenge. And you people are being very unsupportive.
Let's not generalize here.

Montreal could've created something different and still keep the original shadow gameplay. Hello? It's next-gen gaming? I just can't imagine them being "too bored" to create the shadow gameplay again. Nah, I think they changed the whole shebang because M$ paid them a trillion(!) dollars to make the game rather generic and thus more accessible (and exclusive to 360/Vista)...

Of course we're being unsupportive. If we were to be supportive of something that we didn't approve or believe in, then we'd be lying to ourselves as well as to everybody else. SC isn't a cult, and we're not brainwashed - at least not yet. Freedom of speech! *runs*

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by MKCC14

Nobody said we know that their wont be any of the light & shadow gameplay in the game.

BurningDeath did.



Originally posted by BurningDeath

That's the point. If they just added the crowd and social stealth to the classig l&s-gameplay, I'm sure we'd be happy to try it. But to just screw the complete gameplay I loved for years in favour of Sam getting a hobbo that fights himself throught crowds is a tad too much for me.

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by Chinese_Bookey

That's questionable, because Splinter Cell, to me, was always about these three things: the shadows, the goggles, and Sam Fisher. It seems that with Conviction, Ubisoft takes away the shadows, as well as the goggles, and by doing so, they throw two-thirds of the original Splinter Cell experience out the window. Change can be good, but that sounds too sad in my ears. To each their own, I suppose.

L&S mech will most probably also be there. Its just that the games stealth wont be L&S alone.



Originally posted by Chinese_Bookey

Yeah, well, that's relative. What is realism these days? What is "real"? What is the Matrix? Regardless, Splinter Cell isn't "realistic" to me -- at all, really. It's just uber fun, because it draws you in, deep, and that's why I love the series. I love(d) the darkness and the creeping. It can also be boring, if I want it to be, true, but I often don't (for the obvious reasons). Hahaha!

But SC is more realistic than any other stealth title out there, PERIOD.



Let's not generalize here.

Montreal could've created something different and still keep the original shadow gameplay. Hello? It's next-gen gaming? I just can't imagine them being "too bored" to create the shadow gameplay again. Nah, I think they changed the whole shebang because M$ paid them a trillion(!) dollars to make the game rather generic and thus more accessible (and exclusive to 360/Vista)...

Of course we're being unsupportive. If we were to be supportive of something that we didn't approve or believe in, then we'd be lying to ourselves as well as to everybody else. SC isn't a cult, and we're not brainwashed - at least not yet. Freedom of speech! *runs*

So you do realise that the developers aren't bound to make only YOU people happy but gather more people. Plus developers know perfectly well what they are doing. Montreal studios is IMO the most creative developers presently.


Originally posted by CoastalGirl

I do like the classic gameplay; why would I play the games if I didn't? BUT, that does not mean that I'm against changes that add to what I've liked. SCCT had lots of additions, and it is a GREAT game.
What little we've seen from SCC makes it pretty clear that Ubi's not adding anything. They've changed it completely.

Well what do you think SCDA did. It just added to the SC series. It had more gadgets, more moves. It still retained L&S gameplay but added undercover missions, daylight missions. But still it was not received well by many people. Sorry, but you people have to face it, all you want is a prettier SCCT.

forsaken2shadow
07-03-2007, 12:56 PM
I would be so happy if the game had the shadow effects you speak of, making it more realistic and difficult. I like day time missions and night time missions. Both types should be in the game. Convictions could be cool, but they should not have totally abandoned the original element of splinter cell. They should have gone for increased realism, well developed storyline, large missions with many paths, better AI, and other stuff i cant think of right now.

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 01:02 PM
The original element might not be totally abandoned but just used less I think. But even I hope that some of it still remains. About storyline, I think its goin pretty well. The developers aim to make Sam a hero by the end of this game.

About Increased realism & better AI, yep, I agree with you. By the time the game realeases the developers should see to it that those to aspects are met.

Large missions with many paths, I think the missions will be quite large. 15 episodes, each one hour long sounds large enough to me. The developers also say that there will be many different ways to do things in the game, so I am looking forward to it.

BurningDeath.
07-03-2007, 01:20 PM
You better get your facts (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/789/789307p1.html) straight:

"In the fifth installment of a series that defined itself by the light and dark stealth dynamic, shadows will offer no protection. While new lighting techniques are being put into action in Conviction the gameplay will no longer revolve around them."


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Well what do you think SCDA did. It just added to the SC series.
Yep, it added a whole lot of new bugs and cheap ideas plus a ******ed multiplayer mode. Bravo!

Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
The developers also say that there will be many different ways to do things in the game, so I am looking forward to it.
We've heard that for what...five years now?

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 01:34 PM
In the fifth installment of a series that defined itself by the light and dark stealth dynamic, shadows will offer no protection. While new lighting techniques are being put into action in Conviction the gameplay will no longer revolve around them

Because darkness is not enough to mask your presence. And guards do not patrol areas where they can't see whats 3 feet in front of them.


Yep, it added a whole lot of new bugs and cheap ideas plus a ******ed multiplayer mode. Bravo!

Not too many bugs to really piss me off. And...ahem...daylight/undercover missions were cheap? WTF!

And I dont really care for multiplayer.


We've heard that for what...five years now?

And we've seen that for 5 years as well.

CoastalGirl
07-03-2007, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by CoastalGirl
I do like the classic gameplay; why would I play the games if I didn't? BUT, that does not mean that I'm against changes that add to what I've liked. SCCT had lots of additions, and it is a GREAT game.
What little we've seen from SCC makes it pretty clear that Ubi's not adding anything. They've changed it completely.
Well what do you think SCDA did. It just added to the SC series. It had more gadgets, more moves. It still retained L&S gameplay but added undercover missions, daylight missions. But still it was not received well by many people. Sorry, but you people have to face it, all you want is a prettier SCCT. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just because CT is my favorite doesn't mean I hated DA. No, I didn't love the daylight missions, but they were doable, and some of the new gadgets were cool. I actually got a LOT of use out of the ultrasonic emitter...
It's true that a lot of people didn't like it, though. Ubi mangled the MP (which I don't deal in), and the PC version was ****. Now they're mangling the SP, and I'm probably going to be just as PO'd as the MP people were with DA. Joy.

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 01:39 PM
Just because CT is my favorite doesn't mean I hated DA. No, I didn't love the daylight missions, but they were doable, and some of the new gadgets were cool. I actually got a LOT of use out of the ultrasonic emitter...It's true that a lot of people didn't like it, though. Ubi mangled the MP (which I don't deal in), and the PC version was ****. Now they're mangling the SP, and I'm probably going to be just as PO'd as the MP people were with DA. Joy.

You weren't PO'd with SCDA. But then again it seems like many other people were. Even for the Singleplayer. Neither do I care about MP.

CoastalGirl
07-03-2007, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Just because CT is my favorite doesn't mean I hated DA. No, I didn't love the daylight missions, but they were doable, and some of the new gadgets were cool. I actually got a LOT of use out of the ultrasonic emitter...It's true that a lot of people didn't like it, though. Ubi mangled the MP (which I don't deal in), and the PC version was ****. Now they're mangling the SP, and I'm probably going to be just as PO'd as the MP people were with DA. Joy.
You weren't PO'd with SCDA. But then again it seems like many other people were. Even for the Singleplayer. Neither do I care about MP. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I suspect a lot of the people that have the strongest dislike for the SP tried to play it on their PC...and failed. That'd probably make anyone a little miffed.
Oh, and I think an example of a "cheap idea" would be the mini-games. Building mines was boring...

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 01:59 PM
I suspect a lot of the people that have the strongest dislike for the SP tried to play it on their PC...and failed. That'd probably make anyone a little miffed.Oh, and I think an example of a "cheap idea" would be the mini-games. Building mines was boring...

I played all SC titles on PC. I experienced a few crashes, not enough to make me go ballistic. The game crashed mostly when I used the mini-opsat map. But then I tried to play the game without it and nothing really happened. On my first run through the game, I didn't know about the mini-opsat map, so the game never really crashed. The game just had some incompatibilty with my 8800 GTX SLI. But then again, on my old PC it ran without any problems. Although I couldn't play with max resolution on it.

I did have a problem with the SC-20k scope when using enhanced night vision. The scope-view was glitched. Again, not enough to piss me off.

But I was a bit disappointed because after updating to 1.02 the electronic lockpick was no longer an unlockable equipment. Heck, it wasn't even there.

Then there was this safe-cracking glitch which could be fixed by scrolling the mouse up. So no big deal really.

Another glitch was when sometimes I loaded a save, Sam seemed to fall through the floor and die. But that could be fixed by loading an earlier save. I am a frequent quicksaver http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And about minigames, mine assembly was boring, but the 3d sudoku rocked. It was a nice little puzzle. Didn't take me too much time to solve it though.

Knot3D
07-03-2007, 02:07 PM
Aniket, if you already like it so much without handson playtime, then fine.. keep telling yourself it's the greatest vaporware you've ever played.

However, don't go tell us what is a better game to us. I will decide what is a better game for me from my point of view.

Also, if the developers needed a new challenge they wouldn't have copy pasted all that new Assassin's Creed tech & concept. Guys, don't be naive ; don't deny it happens.

In fact, I have spotted numerous character model assets in both Conviction footage and in final SC DA, re-using models from earlier games. That's pretty dam lazy if you ask me.

And i'm sure that if you look back to Conviction one year after it's release, you'll see as much, if not, MORE, unrealistic feats than in previous SC's ; because it tries to mimic so much Ai variety from real life, it's inevitable it'll fall flat on it's face in a good number of cases.

If light/shadow isn't realistic according to you ; then ; whatever ! I don't even want such a (flawed) 'realism'

psyichic
07-03-2007, 02:13 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Sorry, but you people have to face it, all you want is a prettier SCCT.

That is what we want. A prettier SCCT with improved AI, more dynamics in the Light and shadow gameplay and a few more gadgets. Splinter Cell became a name through it's Light and Shadow gameplay. We all want what we fell in love with. This new "stealth" is just a rip off of two others games with Sam Fisher in it and the name Splinter Cell thrown across the front.

I am not afraid or ashamed to fully admit I basically want a redone SCCT. Hell yes. It is a game I loved, it stayed true to it's series and was a majr improvement in many fields. Now I want the devs to work from there and make it better. I want new moves (That pertain to STEALTH, not throwing printers thank you), new Gadgets (STEALTH gadgets and by that I mean Light and Dark stealth gadgets, give us a spider cam or something), and better AI exactly like Knot3D suggested.

You remind me of those people who said to all the die hard SvM fans "Pfft! You don't want that old re-hashed SvM gameplay again do you!?" during DA's development, and the SvM vets said :"F*** Yes dip****s that is what we have wanted this whole time moron".


Also im gonna say that from a logical stand point they won't implement Dark and Light gameplay. That requires an entire set of rules in itself. Hell they even disabled jumping in the "new" gameplay. That alone indicates they have limited things in the engine that will lead to Dark and Light gameplay being removed. You seem to keep refering to D&L gameplay like it has been confirmed. Sorry that is a rumor that was started by the community. Only on the basis of Sam being a Splinter Cell during the begining of the game. Even that we have heard are probably just introductions to the "new stealth" gameplay.

Also you should note that DA ended up failing out because of the huge story line holes in the "next-gen" versions, the craptastic MP, glitches galore, and in general bad design.

Another thing is that it has been relatively well seen in SC that drastic changes equals bad game. For example there was that drastic change in DA MP that I spoke of. And well let's just say it sucked royally (I would love to use much more colorful language but the filters wouldn't like me).

Im surprised they didn't take any hints from the community. We said we wanted the old types of gameplay just more brushed up. THe funny thing is that you seem this as a "bad thing" to just want basically the old game with improvements on it. Is that so difficult to comprehend that that is what we want?

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 02:21 PM
Aniket, if you already like it so much without handson playtime, then fine.. keep telling yourself it's the greatest vaporware you've ever played.However, don't go tell us what is a better game to us. I will decide what is a better game for me from my point of view.

I have a right to express my opinion.


Also, if the developers needed a new challenge they wouldn't have copy pasted all that new Assassin's Creed tech & concept. Guys, don't be naive ; don't deny it happens. In fact, I have spotted numerous character model assets in both Conviction footage and in final SC DA, re-using models from earlier games. That's pretty dam lazy if you ask me.

Lets figure out how close SCC is to AC when both are released. I see many people getting pwnd.



And i'm sure that if you look back to Conviction one year after it's release, you'll see as much, if not, MORE, unrealistic feats than in previous SC's ; because it tries to mimic so much Ai variety from real life, it's inevitable it'll fall flat on it's face in a good number of cases.

But I will see many more realistic feats as well. Its not possible to obtain 100% perfection.


If light/shadow isn't realistic according to you

My point here is, guards do not patrol completely dark areas. High-security areas are well lit, atleast the indoors are. So you can have it based solely on L&S. Simple as that. Plus moving objects are not too hard to spot in the dark. And lights usually glow brighter than its in the game. Moonlight is sometimes enough to see facial details and definitely enough to spot someone. You dont really expect Sam to do missions only on new-moon nights.

And when I turn off NVG, I can still see a silouhette of Sam as well as enemy guards. Why can't they see me. Do they suffer from nyctalopia.

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 02:29 PM
That is what we want. A prettier SCCT with improved AI, more dynamics in the Light and shadow gameplay and a few more gadgets. Splinter Cell became a name through it's Light and Shadow gameplay. We all want what we fell in love with. This new "stealth" is just a rip off of two others games with Sam Fisher in it and the name Splinter Cell thrown across the front.I am not afraid or ashamed to fully admit I basically want a redone SCCT. Hell yes. It is a game I loved, it stayed true to it's series and was a majr improvement in many fields. Now I want the devs to work from there and make it better. I want new moves (That pertain to STEALTH, not throwing printers thank you), new Gadgets (STEALTH gadgets and by that I mean Light and Dark stealth gadgets, give us a spider cam or something), and better AI exactly like Knot3D suggested.

OK then, I understand what you guys want. But then I just thought people were a bit more broad-minded.

But I think I have explained pretty well why hiding in shadows doesn't work in all real-life senarios.


You remind me of those people who said to all the die hard SvM fans "Pfft! You don't want that old re-hashed SvM gameplay again do you!?" during DA's development, and the SvM vets said :"F*** Yes dip****s that is what we have wanted this whole time moron".

Dunno about MP dude. Never really cared. I am all for the Single Player. If the singleplayer is good, then the game is good (to me).

But most people who don't like the way SCC is progressing bashed SCDA not for its glitches but for its gameplay change.

And Knot3d, why dont you just take a look at SCDA gamespot review as well as user reviews. You might be in for a surprise.

Knot3D
07-03-2007, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
I have a right to express my opinion.

You still do not have the right to prescribe me what is best for me.


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Lets figure out how close SCC is to AC when both are released. I see many people getting pwnd.

It's about the tech, man ; the programming code copy pasting is to cut costs. Yeah, they will somewhat try to differentiate it. The "Hero Vision" is a straight AC rip which
noone can deny. Owned.


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
But I will see many more realistic feats as well. Its not possible to obtain 100% perfection.
Then please get off the high horse. If Convictioners are so ahhum.. open minded, then they should be just open minded enough to think about the possibility that their
so called (skewed) 'realism' might just be a major turn off, afterall.


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
And when I turn off NVG, I can still see a silouhette of Sam as well as enemy guards. Why can't they see me. Do they suffer from nyctalopia.
In sucha game situation you are looking at Sam from a different point of view, than the guards walking around. Then there's the possibility that you need to recalibrate your monitor.

And to reiterate ; "Ow, i'm this suspicious bearded hoodie guy... but now i am not suspicious just because i am standing close & listening in to a group of people on the streets who happened to have a convo" Hot dam, if that wouldn't raise an eyebrow in such a real life situation, then i wouldn't know what would.

Heck, i'll have a better 'Conviction experience' at NO cost just by walking down the streets in real life wit my hoodie on, imagining myself i have some supersecret goals to accomplish.

* edit : I like SC DA both versions. What's your point ?

psyichic
07-03-2007, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:

OK then, I understand what you guys want. But then I just thought people were a bit more broad-minded.

But I think I have explained pretty well why hiding in shadows doesn't work in all real-life senarios.

Well 2 things: First games are not supposed to be entirely realistic(Unless you are Armed Assault or Operation Flashpoint). Half Life 2 wassn't realistic but was it a good game? Yes. Realism is a game in it's self. Don't ask for "realism" unless you know what that means. That means no stupid guards who get beaten up like morons, guards who follow you alone like idiots into a place to get knocked out, no super hoodie, and guards who are idiots and don't blatantly come in a group and arrest you (yes I was just talking about Conviction).

Sorry but the way you say it I would suggest you go play Operation flashpoint. It is a great game if not a little old. It provides wonderful realism and it does include stealth. Be warned though one bullet normally takes you down, don't get hit in the legs too much or you may find yourself crawling around until you bleed to death, sneaking into heavily guarded bases is practically suicide, and the AI will pop you off really quick.

Just so you know what your getting into when you want "Realism"

Oh and have you ever hard of the saying "If it isn't broken don't fix it" ?


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Dunno about MP dude. Never really cared. I am all for the Single Player. If the singleplayer is good, then the game is good (to me).

But most people who don't like the way SCC is progressing bashed SCDA not for its glitches but for its gameplay change.

And there was good reason to say DA's "progression" was poor. They replaced the stealth meters with a stop light system on your back. Daylight levels no longer held that slow and silent approach feeling (I don't have a big problem with them but I did miss that slow feeling of night gameplay). Mini-games do get annoying, the whole JBA thing just isn't Splinter Cell style. Splinter Cells were defined in the first game as physical intelligence agents who infiltrate using physical stealth. The whole Double Agent thing made no sense. I mean people were like: OMG he is a NOC agent! (No Official Cover). But people failed to realize he was a NOC agent through his entire series. In SC1 there was a little audio clip of him saying "If I am captured my superiors will disavvow any knowledge of my existence". He didn't even exist in the first game according to records. He never had official cover but people were acting like the whole Double Agent idea was super special.

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 02:59 PM
You still do not have the right to prescribe me what is best for me.

Who's prescribing. As a matter of fact, I would recommend you to not buy this game and go on with your whining while we enjoy our game.



It's about the tech, man ; the programming code copy pasting is to cut costs. Yeah, they will somewhat try to differentiate it. The "Hero Vision" is a straight AC rip which noone can deny. Owned.


Quoted from here (http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/789/789307p1.html):

Chaos and panic can be overwhelming to a random civilian, but Sam Fisher is a highly trained soldier so at least one mechanic has been put into the game to reflect this. It's called "focus vision" and it works a bit like a sixth sense. When activated, it allows the player to see where enemies have moved to, even if they're behind a wall or other obstruction. Super spies wouldn't forget that a cop had walked around a corner, even if a player might.

So I think it makes perfect sense for the developers to put it in the game. Any other reason as to why this game will be bad because of it.


Then please get off the high horse. If Convictioners are so ahhum.. open minded, then they should be just open minded enough to think about the possibility that their
so called (skewed) 'realism' might just be a major turn off, afterall.

The game might be a realistic, might be not. But I am open-minded enough to try out these new changes. And BTW, if you think that anti-convictioneers are a majority, you are wrong. See the poll results.


And to reiterate ; "Ow, i'm this suspicious bearded hoodie guy... but now i am not suspicious just because i am standing close & listening in to a group of people on the streets who happened to have a convo" Hot dam, if that wouldn't raise an eyebrow in such a real life situation, then i wouldn't know what would.

So everyone with a beard and a hoodie attract attention. Geez...I didn't know that. And just having a convo with someone is no reason for someone to go call the police. Sheesh!!


Heck, i'll have a better 'Conviction experience' at NO cost just by walking down the streets in real life wit my hoodie on, imagining myself i have some supersecret goals to accomplish.

Please go ahead and do it.


* edit : I like SC DA both versions. What's your point ?

Your posts say otherwise.

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 03:12 PM
Well 2 things: First games are not supposed to be entirely realistic(Unless you are Armed Assault or Operation Flashpoint). Half Life 2 wassn't realistic but was it a good game? Yes. Realism is a game in it's self. Don't ask for "realism" unless you know what that means. That means no stupid guards who get beaten up like morons, guards who follow you alone like idiots into a place to get knocked out, no super hoodie, and guards who are idiots and don't blatantly come in a group and arrest you (yes I was just talking about Conviction).

Stealth games are supposed to be as realistic as possible. Half-life 2 is run and gun.

And about the guards getting beaten up like morons, well Sam is much more skilled in CQC than them, plain and simple.

Guards wont come in a group to follow you and arrest you just because you whistled or dropped someones laptop.

And moreover, Sam looks a lot different from his former self so guards should have a tough time identifying him. And a hoodie would just make him less IDable.


Oh and have you ever hard of the saying "If it isn't broken don't fix it" ?

But the series will die if there are like 4-5 more Splinter Cell games with the same old L&S concept. If the gameplay doesn't change people will eventually get bored of it. The game devs understand that more that you do. You just fail to comprehend it.


And there was good reason to say DA's "progression" was poor. They replaced the stealth meters with a stop light system on your back. Daylight levels no longer held that slow and silent approach feeling (I don't have a big problem with them but I did miss that slow feeling of night gameplay). Mini-games do get annoying, the whole JBA thing just isn't Splinter Cell style. Splinter Cells were defined in the first game as physical intelligence agents who infiltrate using physical stealth. The whole Double Agent thing made no sense. I mean people were like: OMG he is a NOC agent! (No Official Cover). But people failed to realize he was a NOC agent through his entire series. In SC1 there was a little audio clip of him saying "If I am captured my superiors will disavvow any knowledge of my existence". He didn't even exist in the first game according to records. He never had official cover but people were acting like the whole Double Agent idea was super special.

Dude why dont you check out reviews of SCDA. It wasn't a failure. Many people enjoyed it. Only the ones who dont, come to these communities to express their anger.

Woosy
07-03-2007, 03:46 PM
when I turn off NVG, I can still see a silouhette of Sam as well as enemy guards. Why can't they see me. Do they suffer from nyctalopia.

When Splinter Cell first came on the scene and you're in pitch black darkness, one of the biggest questions came up was, how can the guards not see the glow on Sam Fishers head? There was an explanation that it was so you know which direction Sam is facing, the shadows in my opinion are problems due to "technology", as it moves on it gets better take Crysis with it's projected shadows, if they had that technology back then Splinter Cell could be well, just imagine.

I personally think Hitman 47 is a far more realistic game then Splinter Cell simply because it's plausable and happens more oftern around the world, then an Agent breaking into high security buildings doesn't mean I hate Splinter Cell i'm, just saying. Just look for husbands and wifes calling up hitmen or even take the CIA who just revealed they wanted to assassinate certain high ranking politicians. Metal Gear comes in last place for it's realism, guys with hornets flying around him in out his mouth, bosses who wear roller skates, Vampires and robotic ninjas, come on now... But you know what realism or not these games are fun for people to play and I think fun comes above realism. You cannot compare HL2 which is an action/adventure game to a stealth game which are in two different genres.

There are many things Splinter Cell has in common with Assasin's Creed, I have already told you in Assassin's Creed Altair the guy you play has hero vision, the screen goes white and you can see who is good and who is bad, think of it as spiderman with his tingly spider sence, it isn't realistic at all. However like i said also in Assassin's Creed it doesn't matter because it's a different game using entirely different mechanics, you can't say it's out of place because its a new game.

I've also said to you why Splinter Cell Double Agent failed. It is not opinion based, it's based on numbers and data Ubisoft have, the devs have said it themselves, don't ignore this fact. I'll say it again, when i was Moderating for this forum, and PC gamers where filling page upon page with complaints about perfomance issues, bugs, Multiplayer, Storylines that made no sence. Missing CGI sequnces shown in trailers, corrupt saved data, um... Africans sounding like Koreans because Shanghai re-used the voices from Chaos Theory and put them in double agent, the list goes on. These are valid complaints, there is lots more, like the light/dark notification, aka traffic light system which got it's name from the community and got criticised for being implemented badly.

I mean psyichic and the hardcore gamers, before double agent came out said they didn't like the way it looked, many had this same opinion, there was various questions like neck snaps team moves and how the drone works and fake heartbeat puck etc... They waited till the demo came out and nothing changed, what they saw is what they got pretty much. Low numbers on multiplayer is another idicator of how well it's done. Funnily there is probably more playing Chaos Theory online then Double Agent, what does this tell you? It tells me it worked but needs to be tweaked for a wider audience, with in-depth tutorials like Double Agent had.

Market research is a tool Ubisoft should use, they say they do it but honestly... If they did a poll here about L&D gameplay and SvM you would get I would say 98% across the board, this I know when SvM was said to not be included with SCDA is was spy versus spy the uproar on this forum was heard and the put it in, well ported it for that to be in the game. The reason you do market research is to find out trends... Ubisoft on the other hand because something fails scraps it, like SvM, when it could of been improved, they scrapped L&D because SCDA failed, instead of delving into why it failed they make up some weird oh it's not appealing now, it's outdated.. But they miss the reason why SCDA failed and the thing is if they're presented with the fact Shanghai did a botch job with the list of faults I list above along with many I have from members to pass onto developers you would understand, but you can see why the game failed. You know what they say history has an act of repeating itself.

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 03:58 PM
True, as per people's responses in various places, MP in SCDA sucked. And I am not really into SC multiplayer mode. But then there are so many people out there who enjoyed SCDA single player mode. Take a look at gamespot user reviews. You will see what I mean. Many people were actually releaved that the series is actually changing and wont get stale. So SCDA wasn't a total failure.

And the Hero sense works somewhat this way...Since the player might not actually observe where all the cops are that well Sam, being a superspy with so much training, would.

MKCC14
07-03-2007, 04:27 PM
@Psychic: That hero vision you mentioned, when it was described yes it sounds the same thing like what is in AC, but we havent seen anything of how it is in SCC yet. So I suggest to keep judgement off of that yet until we actually see something of how it looks. Even though I doubt it will be the same thing exactly.

Other than that, I believe the L&S gameplay had reached its peak at SCCT. It was done the best there and Ubi delivered the best SC game we all had...the only few things they could have had improved on is probably the AI. The game was so good that it poked fun at many different games...james bond, MGS, half-life 2, etc. When SCDA came around the game just started to get too easy and we have had mastered this L&S like I said before. It was still fun, but Ubi introducing something new now doesnt hurt.

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 04:31 PM
Check this link (http://xboxyde.com/news_4378_20058_1_en.html)

Look at the comments posted.

So the world is not void of broad-minded people after all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

CoastalGirl
07-03-2007, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
But the series will die if there are like 4-5 more Splinter Cell games with the same old L&S concept. If the gameplay doesn't change people will eventually get bored of it. The game devs understand that more that you do. You just fail to comprehend it.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif No. Just no.

aniket_nayak
07-03-2007, 04:43 PM
Using the same concept over and over again is boring. Everything gets boring after a while. You may not agree, but thats how it is.

CoastalGirl
07-03-2007, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Using the same concept over and over again is boring. Everything gets boring after a while. You may not agree, but thats how it is.
And that's why there are no racing games being made anymore, right?

MKCC14
07-03-2007, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Using the same concept over and over again is boring. Everything gets boring after a while. You may not agree, but thats how it is.
And that's why there are no racing games being made anymore, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope, that amazing off-road racing game DIRT just came out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CoastalGirl
07-03-2007, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by MKCC14:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Using the same concept over and over again is boring. Everything gets boring after a while. You may not agree, but thats how it is.
And that's why there are no racing games being made anymore, right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope, that amazing off-road racing game DIRT just came out. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Heh...I was kidding. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

forsaken2shadow
07-03-2007, 08:17 PM
Double agent was going in the right direction. Montreal could have used day and night missions and made it great. With all the AI, graphic, and realism improvements that they could possible make. I'm positive that convictions will be good, but i dont want to lose the orignal concept of splinter cell forever. I dont care how much the game changes, as long as i can tell its still splinter cell. Yes the same thing over and over again gets boring. changing the game like this wont cure that though. I love the hitman series. I'll probably play assassins creed too, and enjoy that. So you know whats gonna bore me? It's having three series with almost the same set up. Assassins creed and hitman being original and splinter cell putting elements of both games into itself and erasing what made it what it was. I'll enjoy convictions, but i dont like the scary fact that splinter cell may be gone forever. So after convictions, i hope they bring it back to splinter cell. Not chaos theory. but the direction double agent was heading in. night time stealth and day time stealth. thats what i want.

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 12:35 AM
Racing games are boring. I have never been able to play any NFS game for more than 2 hours. Thats why I stopped buying.


Double agent was going in the right direction. Montreal could have used day and night missions and made it great. With all the AI, graphic, and realism improvements that they could possible make. I'm positive that convictions will be good, but i dont want to lose the orignal concept of splinter cell forever. I dont care how much the game changes, as long as i can tell its still splinter cell. Yes the same thing over and over again gets boring. changing the game like this wont cure that though. I love the hitman series. I'll probably play assassins creed too, and enjoy that. So you know whats gonna bore me? It's having three series with almost the same set up. Assassins creed and hitman being original and splinter cell putting elements of both games into itself and erasing what made it what it was. I'll enjoy convictions, but i dont like the scary fact that splinter cell may be gone forever. So after convictions, i hope they bring it back to splinter cell. Not chaos theory. but the direction double agent was heading in. night time stealth and day time stealth. thats what i want.

Yes, I do see your point about having L&S concept. But half the game where you play as spy, who knows, we might be in for a surprise.

And Hitman is a tad bit different from this game. Hitman doesn't exactly have crowd stealth. Because nobody knows how 47 looks (unless you have been playing like a thug). No matter how long he stays in the crowd, he will not arouse suspicion. But when entering restricted area, he has to wear a disguise. So Hitman is basically about disguises & deception. But in SCC the police are on the lookout for a wanted criminal. So Sam has to blend in and mimic the crowd, cause distractions things like that. And I have heard that we will have to depend on the black market for gadgets. And the gadgets will most probably be things we haven't seen before. That sounds good to me. Assassins creed and SCC share the crowd stealth concept but they will have their set of differences. After all both games are being developed by Montreal so they will know how to make each of these games unique.

Its nice to see that someone in this community liked the way double agent was going http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif. Every other person is like we hate double agent, bring us a prettier SCCT with just new missions.

But what we have seen from trailers, its just one level as a fugitive. They wanted to show off whats new in their game during the interview. They wanted to show as much as possible during the limited time frame.

At first he is seen hiding under a table and grabing a person from back. So there will be stealth and we can also play the game stealthily. Next he shows that in case you get caught you can beat the **** out of the other guards. But then many other guards will then be alerted. Yes, Sam did seem superhuman and could beat the **** outta lotsa guys, but I think the devs will tone than down so as to give us more of a challenge. They also showed us 3 diff ways to get by guards. One was subtle (luring him behind bush), other was slightly suspicious (Dropping someones laptop) then finally most aggressive (Shooting a propane tank).

Lets wait and see how a spy level will be like. I am sure it will be different but in a nice way.

But let all see what convictions has to offer. As far as I know, the environment is fully interactive, every person in the crowd has a distinct AI, super sexy graphics with super sexy lighting effects, better CQC with more than just 4-5 moves, more than 10000 diff animations, more than 3000 conversations between civilians and much more.

Even if they do bring back L&S concept, I hope they will make it more realistic. Yeah, I have been hearing a lotta **** about why games shouldn't be realistic but then they do not apply for stealth games. If they every use L&S, I want to see one main change in the system. Guards can actually adjust to darkness. If they are in a lit room for a long time and then you shoot out the lights, you will be given a limited timeframe before you can sneak past that room. But if you stay too long he would be able to see pretty well. Even a small source of light far away can reflect/diffuse/scatter and make you visible to the eyes of a person adjusted to darkness.

forsaken2shadow
07-04-2007, 01:03 AM
I agree with you on having a more realistic light and shadow system. I agree with pretty much everything and i see your point about hitman. One more thing. Guards shouldnt be patrolling where they cant see some dude walking around out in the open because its so dark.

rogerwilco99
07-04-2007, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:

OK then, I understand what you guys want. But then I just thought people were a bit more broad-minded.



First, no need to be insulting. We know we like the style of gameplay that SC1-SC2-SC3 gave us. I'd be perfectly willing to try something new as long as they don't call it the same thing. Because it ISN'T the same thing. I like that style of game play. Why can't I have more?

It's like telling people who buy a new version of MLB Baseball (yes, redundant, I know) that it's now cricket. Or telling people who buy Madden Football that they now have to play rugby. Even though the games are still _called_ Baseball and Football.

How many people would like that the FIFA game is now rugby only (not to pick on rugby).




But I think I have explained pretty well why hiding in shadows doesn't work in all real-life scenarios.



Well, NOTHING in games works in ALL real-life scenarios.

But, if you think that the stealth action in the game it doesn't work in real life, then you haven't tried it. I used to play a stealth infiltration game (inspired by SC1 but no shooting or physical contact) with friends in a warehouse area (inside and out). We even pitched in and bought a ($3500) set of NVGs. One person played the spy/infiltrator. We used a full body wet suit for the costume but it was too noisy so opted for a black flight suit.

I can guarantee you that what Sam does in using shadows for stealth is perfectly valid. In fact, done correctly, it can be amazingly easy.

I had to give it up because the crackling of my knees and ankles gave me away in close quarters.

rogerwilco99
07-04-2007, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Using the same concept over and over again is boring. Everything gets boring after a while. You may not agree, but thats how it is.

For you. Don't presume to speak for others.

Baseball, basketball, soccer, football, golf and myriad other sports have been around for a long time. I guess that's because people are just bored stiff of them since they're the same old concept, decade after decade...

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 02:50 AM
It's like telling people who buy a new version of MLB Baseball (yes, redundant, I know) that it's now cricket. Or telling people who buy Madden Football that they now have to play rugby. Even though the games are still _called_ Baseball and Football.How many people would like that the FIFA game is now rugby only (not to pick on rugby).

Well, you do realise how boring these EA sport series have got. No one other than sports enthusiasts play them anymore.


But, if you think that the stealth action in the game it doesn't work in real life, then you haven't tried it. I used to play a stealth infiltration game (inspired by SC1 but no shooting or physical contact) with friends in a warehouse area (inside and out). We even pitched in and bought a ($3500) set of NVGs. One person played the spy/infiltrator. We used a full body wet suit for the costume but it was too noisy so opted for a black flight suit.I can guarantee you that what Sam does in using shadows for stealth is perfectly valid. In fact, done correctly, it can be amazingly easy.

Yeah, but in reality, people do not always patrol around pitch black warehouses.

I can see fairly well during powercuts (powercuts = absolutely no lights on). Moonlight is enough to navigate during the dark. Dont tell me that your friends and you suffer from nyctalopia.


For you. Don't presume to speak for others.

I am not speaking for others. Why dont you see Double Agent gamespot user reviews. Apparently, most of them share an opinion.

Or check out this link
http://xboxyde.com/news_4378_20058_1_en.html
Where most people seem to be welcoming change.


Baseball, basketball, soccer, football, golf and myriad other sports have been around for a long time. I guess that's because people are just bored stiff of them since they're the same old concept, decade after decade...

Video games are always different from outdoor games because in outdoor games you do more than just push buttons. Get that in your head.

BurningDeath.
07-04-2007, 04:52 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Stealth games are supposed to be as realistic as possible. Half-life 2 is run and gun.
No.
And please stop acting like you were the only one who knew what the world was about.
I don't think the MGS series has got millions of fans all over the world because of it's excellent realistic gameplay, does it?


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
But the series will die if there are like 4-5 more Splinter Cell games with the same old L&S concept. If the gameplay doesn't change people will eventually get bored of it. The game devs understand that more that you do. You just fail to comprehend it.
Yeah, right just like all the EA-series (FIFA, Madden, NHL, NFS,...), Final Fantasy (like 11 games now?) but also games like Battlefield (1942, Vietnam, 2, 2142) died off and had all their fans getting bored, right?


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Using the same concept over and over again is boring. Everything gets boring after a while. You may not agree, but thats how it is.
I begin to think that you have some serious problems in your life...
I'm just giving you an example: I've been following (playing, watching, living http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) the soccer sport for like 15 years now, since I was five years old, my grandfather did the same thing for about 65 years now and yet is in no way bored. Or do you think you will ever get bored of sex? I doubt that, so your logic doesn't work, neither in computer games, nor in the real life.
If you like something, you won't get bored at all.


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Yes, I do see your point about having L&S concept. But half the game where you play as spy, who knows, we might be in for a surprise.
There won't be any surprises, L&S is out. Get it.

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 05:43 AM
No.And please stop acting like you were the only one who knew what the world was about.I don't think the MGS series has got millions of fans all over the world because of it's excellent realistic gameplay, does it?

No, but because of its great storyline.


Yeah, right just like all the EA-series (FIFA, Madden, NHL, NFS,...), Final Fantasy (like 11 games now?) but also games like Battlefield (1942, Vietnam, 2, 2142) died off and had all their fans getting bored, right?

All EA sport games are boring PERIOD. Only sports enthusiasts play them nowadays. They were good, like in 2002.

Battlefield games do improve. But none of them create the wow factor the first one did.



I begin to think that you have some serious problems in your life...

Oh, thank you, your opinion means a great deal to me.


I'm just giving you an example: I've been following (playing, watching, living graemlin:http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) the soccer sport for like 15 years now, since I was five years old, my grandfather did the same thing for about 65 years now and yet is in no way bored. Or do you think you will ever get bored of sex? I doubt that, so your logic doesn't work, neither in computer games, nor in the real life.If you like something, you won't get bored at all.

Video games =/= outdoor games PERIOD. And lemme redirect you to gamespot user reviews of SCDA. You will see that many many people prefer to see new gameplay rather than SCCT over and over again.

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/splintercell4/players.html


There won't be any surprises, L&S is out. Get it.

Lights and shadows are out, too bad. But then that was old anyways. If every new Splinter Cell game had L&S then I dont think it could create the wow the first game did. And to those people who think this is not a Splinter Cell game must have taken Splinter Cell series to be a spy sim throughout.

marinius
07-04-2007, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:

Lights and shadows are out, too bad. But then that was old anyways. If every new Splinter Cell game had L&S then I dont think it could create the wow the first game did. And to those people who think this is not a Splinter Cell game must have taken Splinter Cell series to be a spy sim throughout.

Ok, in the hopes of putting an end to this discussion and to your holier-than-thou attitude: Some of us are fans of old-style Splinter Cell. You, apparently, have grown tired of it. That's fine. You can stop pegging people as close-minded just because we happen to like a different style of gaming than you. Whether or not someone is looking forward to these drastic changes in the SC-franchise is hardly what defines a person's attitude toward the world in general.

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 06:16 AM
You can insult me all you want, but then all your whining will not get you back the old Splinter Cell. Its gone, get over it. So many crybabies here.

If you can get over it then fine, otherwise don't bother buying this game and any future SC game for that matter because you simply cannot appreciate the work the developers are trying to do for you.

marinius
07-04-2007, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
You can insult me all you want, but then all your whining will not get you back the old Splinter Cell. Its gone, get over it. So many crybabies here.

If you can get over it then fine, otherwise don't bother buying this game and any future SC game for that matter.


How did I insult you? You're the one talking about close-mindedness, whiners and crybabies. By doing so, you adapt a condescending attitude and by so doing shouldn't feel insulted when somebody points that out.

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 06:24 AM
Ok read this interview and try and understand why the developers are choosing this new gameplay.

http://www.fz.se/artiklar/article.php?id=1710
http://www.fz.se/artiklar/article.php?id=1711
http://www.fz.se/artiklar/article.php?id=1712
http://www.fz.se/artiklar/article.php?id=1713
http://www.fz.se/artiklar/article.php?id=1714

Please try and appreciate what they are trying to do. They are trying to recreate the wow factor which the first SC did but the rest failed to create.

marinius
07-04-2007, 06:32 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Ok read this interview and try and understand why the developers are choosing this new gameplay.

http://www.fz.se/artiklar/article.php?id=1710
http://www.fz.se/artiklar/article.php?id=1710
http://www.fz.se/artiklar/article.php?id=1710
http://www.fz.se/artiklar/article.php?id=1710
http://www.fz.se/artiklar/article.php?id=1710

Please try and appreciate what they are trying to do. They are trying to recreate the wow factor which the first SC did but the rest failed to create.

Ok, please try to understand why you're being patronizing by trying to make me understand something and try to understand that I could care less about what you want me to appreciate about what they're trying to do and so on and so on...

Your original post wasn't that bad, a bit on the smug side, but still I could see what you were aiming for. However, it seems that you've just been losing the plot since, sitting ever taller on your high horse.

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 06:43 AM
But then how hard is it to get over something. There are many more things in life that deserve more attention than the fact that Splinter Cell series is changing.

marinius
07-04-2007, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
But then how hard is it to get over something. There are many more things in life that deserve more attention than the fact that Splinter Cell series is changing.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

MKCC14
07-04-2007, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by rogerwilco99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Using the same concept over and over again is boring. Everything gets boring after a while. You may not agree, but thats how it is.

For you. Don't presume to speak for others.

Baseball, basketball, soccer, football, golf and myriad other sports have been around for a long time. I guess that's because people are just bored stiff of them since they're the same old concept, decade after decade... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
While you are right that he should not speak for others those sports are all still around because something different happens every year with them. They are not linear and something unique happens every time they come around. So thats why they never get boring after a while. Thats one of the problems here, linear gameplay.

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by MKCC14:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rogerwilco99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Using the same concept over and over again is boring. Everything gets boring after a while. You may not agree, but thats how it is.

For you. Don't presume to speak for others.

Baseball, basketball, soccer, football, golf and myriad other sports have been around for a long time. I guess that's because people are just bored stiff of them since they're the same old concept, decade after decade... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
While you are right that he should not speak for others those sports are all still around because something different happens every year with them. They are not linear and something unique happens every time they come around. So thats why they never get boring after a while. Thats one of the problems here, linear gameplay. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Something different happens everytime you play outdoor games. Video games no matter how replayable they are WILL get repetitive after sometime.

BurningDeath.
07-04-2007, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Video games no matter how replayable they are WILL get repetitive after sometime.
That sounded a lot different before:


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Everything gets boring after a while. You may not agree, but thats how it is.

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 07:42 AM
What I meant was everything that doens't change will get boring. My mistake http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

CanOp
07-04-2007, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by MKCC14:
While you are right that he should not speak for others those sports are all still around because something different happens every year with them. They are not linear and something unique happens every time they come around. So thats why they never get boring after a while. Thats one of the problems here, linear gameplay.

This analogy is stupid.

Yes, sports have different things happening every year that keep people watching but the underlying rules of the game are the same year-to-year.

Splinter Cell 1 to 3 could be looked at the same way. The storylines and locations were different from game to game, but the underlying game mechanics were the same.

Would there be pissed off fans if, one year, they decided to allow people to pick up and run with the ball in soccer matches? Probably and for the same reason that people are pissed off at the direction they are taking the SC series - it is no longer the same sport/game.

MKCC14
07-04-2007, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by CanOp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MKCC14:
While you are right that he should not speak for others those sports are all still around because something different happens every year with them. They are not linear and something unique happens every time they come around. So thats why they never get boring after a while. Thats one of the problems here, linear gameplay.

This analogy is stupid.

Yes, sports have different things happening every year that keep people watching but the underlying rules of the game are the same year-to-year.

Splinter Cell 1 to 3 could be looked at the same way. The storylines and locations were different from game to game, but the underlying game mechanics were the same.

Would there be pissed off fans if, one year, they decided to allow people to pick up and run with the ball in soccer matches? Probably and for the same reason that people are pissed off at the direction they are taking the SC series - it is no longer the same sport/game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
SC has a lot of scripted events, which will most likely let you see the same thing every time you play. Sure everyone plays the game different and what-not but we all will still see the same thing. In sports, there is no scripted events(except for commercials), none of that, you cant tell what will happen each day you watch it. Though the rules still stay the same.

ArrowDynamicsX
07-04-2007, 10:03 AM
I agree. Sports games and the like are strategic dice rolling. Splinter Cell is like building a specific object, you can make variations, but in the end, it's the same result.

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 12:09 PM
It will be cool to have branching storyline as well. Depending on which choice objective you complete, you will get different sets of missions. A complex branching storyline will mean almost infinite replayability http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

MKCC14
07-04-2007, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
It will be cool to have branching storyline as well. Depending on which choice objective you complete, you will get different sets of missions. A complex branching storyline will mean almost infinite replayability http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.
That stuff ruins some games, and I dont think it would be good for this one. It was ok in SCDA but I rather one ending. Look at what it did to True Crime(the 1st one), the game had like 9 different endings and it just wasnt good.

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 12:23 PM
I didn't mean many different endings. I meant many paths the story can follow to reach possibly 1 or 2 endings. But 1 ending is also fine.

Its will be somewhat like branching out and then collapsing into one ending. This way the players can play the game through a different path everytime.

But anyways, I dont think it will happen now since Ubisoft has already completed so much of the game.

MKCC14
07-04-2007, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
I didn't mean many different endings. I meant many paths the story can follow to reach possibly 1 or 2 endings. But 1 ending is also fine.

Its will be somewhat like branching out and then collapsing into one ending. This way the players can play the game through a different path everytime.

But anyways, I dont think it will happen now since Ubisoft has already completed so much of the game.
Oh, yeah that would work, you never know they probably have some of that in there already.

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 12:27 PM
It will be nice to see some of it in there.

But I hope they dont rename the game to Splinter Cell: Path of Leo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

psyichic
07-04-2007, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Well 2 things: First games are not supposed to be entirely realistic(Unless you are Armed Assault or Operation Flashpoint). Half Life 2 wassn't realistic but was it a good game? Yes. Realism is a game in it's self. Don't ask for "realism" unless you know what that means. That means no stupid guards who get beaten up like morons, guards who follow you alone like idiots into a place to get knocked out, no super hoodie, and guards who are idiots and don't blatantly come in a group and arrest you (yes I was just talking about Conviction).

Stealth games are supposed to be as realistic as possible. Half-life 2 is run and gun.

And about the guards getting beaten up like morons, well Sam is much more skilled in CQC than them, plain and simple.

Guards wont come in a group to follow you and arrest you just because you whistled or dropped someones laptop.

And moreover, Sam looks a lot different from his former self so guards should have a tough time identifying him. And a hoodie would just make him less IDable.


Oh and have you ever hard of the saying "If it isn't broken don't fix it" ?

But the series will die if there are like 4-5 more Splinter Cell games with the same old L&S concept. If the gameplay doesn't change people will eventually get bored of it. The game devs understand that more that you do. You just fail to comprehend it.


And there was good reason to say DA's "progression" was poor. They replaced the stealth meters with a stop light system on your back. Daylight levels no longer held that slow and silent approach feeling (I don't have a big problem with them but I did miss that slow feeling of night gameplay). Mini-games do get annoying, the whole JBA thing just isn't Splinter Cell style. Splinter Cells were defined in the first game as physical intelligence agents who infiltrate using physical stealth. The whole Double Agent thing made no sense. I mean people were like: OMG he is a NOC agent! (No Official Cover). But people failed to realize he was a NOC agent through his entire series. In SC1 there was a little audio clip of him saying "If I am captured my superiors will disavvow any knowledge of my existence". He didn't even exist in the first game according to records. He never had official cover but people were acting like the whole Double Agent idea was super special.

Dude why dont you check out reviews of SCDA. It wasn't a failure. Many people enjoyed it. Only the ones who dont, come to these communities to express their anger. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

*NOTE: I quoted the whole post because I am far to lazy to do the editing this time around. Deal with it people. Yea and im gonna list my responses. If you can't figure out what response was to what then tough. Use your brains*


A:Excuse me? As realistic as possible? Sorry but stealth games are basically not realistic even at their core. In the Hitman series people seem to become magically fooled by new outfits despite the obvious face and bald head with a barcode on the back of his head, AC has a man with a magical amount of endurance and guards that can't apparently see the difference between a robed monk and , Thief and SC(1-4) have guards that can't see into the shadows, MGS as said has robotic ninjas..... and the new SC has a man that apparently had his knees removed so he can't jump, there are guards that act like complete morons, and now Sam has a magical super-sense that reminds me of AC ohhhh so much oh yea and apparently if Sam talks with a random group of people on the street he becomes "invisible" to the guards, which makes no sense. Sorry but you need to get over the fact that stealth games are unrealistic. if you want some realism please go play a game that is a simulator. Games are not realistic. Live with it. People don't have magical hoodies that protect you from being seen, super spy senses, or a magical "tension" meter or whatever they are calling that Hitman rip-off.

B: Anyone with half decent common sense wouldn't get beaten up the way those guards were. They are standing around like ragdolls and practically wait to be thrown. They grab Sam and somehow he magically launches them 10 feet using none of his body weight. They then proceed to fly like ragdolls across a level and don't do anything. Not to mention that I am reasonably sure most law enforcement officials go through some form of self defense. Even as in-experienced as I am at martial arts I wouldn't get thrown like that unless I practically jumped with them. The guards lack realism in their attack patterns. They don't do anything other then grab onto Sam for a second and then get beaten into a bloody pulp. Then even while Sam is fighting one of them the other guards just wait around while he beats the snot out of their friends and proceed to attempt to take him on one at a time.

C: Although magically a single guard will watch him walk down an alley and decide to follow him all alone and is not ready whatsoever for any kind of attack. OKAY

D: Although they can still magically identify him. Sorry but it's quite obvious they do recognize him. Otherwise you would just be able to prance across the entire level.

F: And yet we haven't seen anyone start thread prior to Conviction saying "I don't want Light and Dark anymore!". We hear people saying instead: "Improve the AI, make the lighting effects more dynamic, add silhouettes,...etc". The series started in it's Light and Dark steath roots and it should continue. If people loose intrest in it then the series shall die but I haven't seen it yet. With everyone rushing out all these "Social Stealth" titles now like the Hitman series and AC people seem to just want to copy them. Sorry but if people want a different stealth game they can go with another series. If you find it "boring" tough. As long as the developers can continue to improve the AI (and they can) the game won't get "too easy" any time soon.

G: And yet it got lower ratings then the other SC games. Even the current gen DA got a meta score of 89. And the "next-gen" got a meta-score of 84. Now to compare all the Xbox games. SC1 got 93, Pandora tommorrow got 93, and SCCT got 94. DA qualifies as the lowest scoring of the bunch. Not a terrible game but it still did not get into the 90's like it's predecessors.


Games can have things added to them to keep them "fresh" CT had a higher score then the original and that was because it was freshened up with a new engine, lighting, moves, gadgets and a bit more of an open mission design.

Take a look at FEAR. I mean how many survival horro games have we seen? They are just getting pumped out. But what people always comment on in FEAR is the AI (We know now it is actually just really well done scripting and level design that makes them appear smart but regardless). People seem to always go back to how great the AI was in FEAR. You can freshen up a game just by making the AI better. If the developers took the time to work on drastically improving the AI in Splinter Cell then im sure they could achieve the wow factor they want.

I just think they are too lazy to actually bite down and start working like that. They figured it would be easier to steal another gameplay style and just try to build a new "wow" factor around it rather then go through the hard work of taking a game and improving things as difficult as the AI.

MKCC14
07-04-2007, 01:36 PM
Hey psyichic, dont you think they will have to work 10X as hard on the AI than before? I mean, this time around it isnt just a couple of guards walking on patrol and doing minor things. They have to operate all of these other NPCs to interact with Sam and do different stuff. This is really what will make or break the game here, the AI intelligence have to be very good to make the game a great one. Ubi cannot do a crappy job on the AI this time around or I think the game will come out to be complete garbage.

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 01:53 PM
SC(1-4) have guards that can't see into the shadows Thats what I wanted to have changed. Its just unbelievable as to why people can't spot you when you are right in front of them. OK, screw ultra realism, but then geez.


and the new SC has a man that apparently had his knees removed so he can't jump, I am not sure where it was stated he can't jump. Please gimme a link to that info. And anyways it seems that his broken knee has helped him run faster and lift people around.


B: Anyone with half decent common sense wouldn't get beaten up the way those guards were. They are standing around like ragdolls and practically wait to be thrown. They grab Sam and somehow he magically launches them 10 feet using none of his body weight. They then proceed to fly like ragdolls across a level and don't do anything. Not to mention that I am reasonably sure most law enforcement officials go through some form of self defense. Even as in-experienced as I am at martial arts I wouldn't get thrown like that unless I practically jumped with them. The guards lack realism in their attack patterns. They don't do anything other then grab onto Sam for a second and then get beaten into a bloody pulp. Then even while Sam is fighting one of them the other guards just wait around while he beats the snot out of their friends and proceed to attempt to take him on one at a time.

I am sure the devs will fine-tune the difficulty so that its not as easy to beat people up as shown. But yeah, ragdoll will remain cause it looks so damn cool. And about you not getting thrown around like that, I doubt it. Lets see you confront a skilled martial artist and prevent that.


C: Although magically a single guard will watch him walk down an alley and decide to follow him all alone and is not ready whatsoever for any kind of attack. OKAY

Lets just say, Sam has quicker reflexes than the guard.


D: Although they can still magically identify him. Sorry but it's quite obvious they do recognize him. Otherwise you would just be able to prance across the entire level.

Yeah, they do recognize Sam as a fugitive, but you cant just be so suspicious as to go up and beat someone who may look similar to Sam. Sam is basically masking his apperance using the long hair, beard, hoodie so that the guards dont recognize him at once.


F: And yet we haven't seen anyone start thread prior to Conviction saying "I don't want Light and Dark anymore!". We hear people saying instead: "Improve the AI, make the lighting effects more dynamic, add silhouettes,...etc". The series started in it's Light and Dark steath roots and it should continue. If people loose intrest in it then the series shall die but I haven't seen it yet. With everyone rushing out all these "Social Stealth" titles now like the Hitman series and AC people seem to just want to copy them. Sorry but if people want a different stealth game they can go with another series. If you find it "boring" tough. As long as the developers can continue to improve the AI (and they can) the game won't get "too easy" any time soon.

The developers don't want to reach to such an extent that people get so bored of L&S gameplay that they actually start posting topics like that. They are avoiding that.

And moreover, you can atleast try and get over that fact that SC series is gonna change.


G: And yet it got lower ratings then the other SC games. Even the current gen DA got a meta score of 89. And the "next-gen" got a meta-score of 84. Now to compare all the Xbox games. SC1 got 93, Pandora tommorrow got 93, and SCCT got 94. DA qualifies as the lowest scoring of the bunch. Not a terrible game but it still did not get into the 90's like it's predecessors.

But if you read the reviews many people liked the new mission types (undercover/daylight). Double Agent didn't get a lower rating because of lack of L&S.


Take a look at FEAR. I mean how many survival horro games have we seen? They are just getting pumped out. But what people always comment on in FEAR is the AI (We know now it is actually just really well done scripting and level design that makes them appear smart but regardless). People seem to always go back to how great the AI was in FEAR. You can freshen up a game just by making the AI better. If the developers took the time to work on drastically improving the AI in Splinter Cell then im sure they could achieve the wow factor they want.

Ahem, did you know, in SCC every person in the crowd is going to have a distinct AI. They know what things belong to whom. They know how to react to each situation. And the physics of this game is gonna be so damn good. Picking up objects and throwing them will look more seamless than ever. And the SCC will include per pixel AO which will give lighting and shadow effects a much more realistic look. From what I have heard, there are gonna be over 3000 conversations between the civilians to add more immersion. Are you actually considering these things or are you obsessed with L&S gameplay.

And just when I tried to make this thread go in a positive direction by talking about new ideas, someone just has to come and complain about lack of L&S.

MKCC14
07-04-2007, 02:00 PM
Just remember that a review from a site is the opinion of ONE man and not a whole community. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 02:01 PM
Not only the main gamespot review, even the 300+ user reviews somewhat state the same thing.

Knot3D
07-04-2007, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
SC(1-4) have guards that can't see into the shadows. Thats what I wanted to have changed. Its just unbelievable as to why people can't spot you when you are right in front of them. OK, screw ultra realism, but then geez.

Lets just say, Sam has quicker reflexes than the guard.

Yeah, they do recognize Sam as a fugitive, but you cant just be so suspicious as to go up and beat someone who may look similar to Sam. Sam is basically masking his apperance using the long hair, beard, hoodie so that the guards dont recognize him at once.

You're using the same stretches of game imagination, if not, BIGGER ones, than the ones applied to L& S gameplay


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
The developers don't want to reach to such an extent that people get so bored of L&S gameplay that they actually start posting topics like that. They are avoiding that.

And moreover, you can atleast try and get over that fact that SC series is gonna change.
The Developers SHOULD BE ABLE TO CODE AN ENGINE WHICH CAN MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REFRESHING NEXT GEN L&S gameplay With Conviction, they didn't even try. With next gen power there's NO excuse to not try to have Ai which can see into darkness with fall off, silhouettes and the whole lot. But noes, they choose the cheap way out ; copy paste AC code and just alter it a bit to fit their all too conveniently made up story of a fugitive. Probably not even THAT original since they were watching 24 & such before and during SC DA development.


originally posted by Psyichic Take a look at FEAR. I mean how many survival horro games have we seen? They are just getting pumped out. But what people always comment on in FEAR is the AI (We know now it is actually just really well done scripting and level design that makes them appear smart but regardless). People seem to always go back to how great the AI was in FEAR. You can freshen up a game just by making the AI better. If the developers took the time to work on drastically improving the AI in Splinter Cell then im sure they could achieve the wow factor they want.

Word !


Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Ahem, did you know, in SCC every person in the crowd is going to have a distinct AI. They know what things belong to whom. They know how to react to each situation. And the physics of this game is gonna be so damn good. Picking up objects and throwing them will look more seamless than ever. And the SCC will include per pixel AO which will give lighting and shadow effects a much more realistic look. From what I have heard, there are gonna be over 3000 conversations between the civilians to add more immersion. Are you actually considering these things or are you obsessed with L&S gameplay.

empty promises on the Ai. I'd bet the convo's will feel really artificial, IF at all... Sam will have conversation capabilities. What ; is he gonna have textline options to choose from ? Sims Anyone ? Oh, ffs.

The SC series isn't changing. No, it has officially deceased and it's being replaced by a spin off clone named Conviction, tagged an SC game for the sake of SALES

stavros_27
07-04-2007, 02:33 PM
"they scrapped L&D because SCDA failed, instead of delving into why it failed they make up some weird oh it's not appealing now, it's outdated.."

If you are referring to L&D as light and dark....Ubi Montreal had mentioned that they began development for Conviction after Chaos Theory was finished. So them scrapping the light/shadows looked like it was inevitable. Double Agent seemed to be Ubisoft's way of easing us into the series changing.

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 02:36 PM
The Developers SHOULD BE ABLE TO CODE AN ENGINE WHICH CAN MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REFRESHING NEXT GEN L&S gameplay With Conviction, they didn't even try. With next gen power there's NO excuse to not try to have Ai which can see into darkness with fall off, silhouettes and the whole lot. But noes, they choose the cheap way out ; copy paste AC code and just alter it a bit to fit their all too conveniently made up story of a fugitive. Probably not even THAT original since they were watching 24 & such before and during SC DA development.

But then, you do realise that when they put it all of that realism into L&S, it would be better to just stay off someones line of sight rather than depend on shadows. Then it will lead to the same whining about shadows not being the most important part of gameplay.


d bet the convo's will feel really artificial, IF at all... Sam will have conversation capabilities. What ; is he gonna have textline options to choose from ? Sims Anyone ? Oh, ffs.

Do i detect some pessismism here. Wouldn't kill you to atleast hope that the convo's are good. You are just plain apprehensive about this game. Since lights and shadows are not gonna be there, everything else that this game is gonna offer us is gonna be ****.



The SC series isn't changing. No, it has officially deceased and it's being replaced by a spin off clone named Conviction, tagged an SC game for the sake of SALES

Its still SC because it has got stealth and it has got Sam.

So could we get back to discussing ideas pertaining to the new gameplay here rather than whining about the inevitable.

forsaken2shadow
07-04-2007, 02:53 PM
Would everyone hate it if the game had original splinter cell type missions and day time missions, where you have to use different tactics like hiding behind stuff. Made by montreal obviously. I can understand hating convictions, cause it's leaving what made splinter cell what it was behind. But would you guys hate a quality game with awesome night missions and a couple awesome day time missions scattered throughout the game.

SPROGGY
07-04-2007, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by forsaken2shadow:
Would everyone hate it if the game had original splinter cell type missions and day time missions, where you have to use different tactics like hiding behind stuff. Made by montreal obviously. I can understand hating convictions, cause it's leaving what made splinter cell what it was behind. But would you guys hate a quality game with awesome night missions and a couple awesome day time missions scattered throughout the game.

I actually think that would be best, and would lean more towards the realistic side. Except I would like more of a 50/50 split between day and night missions. As long as they kept the interactivity and the new H2H system then It would be fantastic. I also like the idea of Sam having to use his wits to survive though. Having the gadgets is cool, but Im looking forward to using my own two hands when Conviction comes out.

forsaken2shadow
07-04-2007, 03:12 PM
yea, since double agent ive wanted less gadgets. He shouldnt have been using the nsa prototype sc20 when he was undercover with the terrorist.

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 03:15 PM
Wonder what gadgets we will get off the black market. Since the gameplay is gonna change it aint gonna be the gadgets seen earlier.

ROLNIK
07-04-2007, 03:15 PM
Reasons why light/shadow gameplay isn't too realistic...
Who cares about realism while playing Splinter Cell?

aniket_nayak
07-04-2007, 03:16 PM
^^^^ Not realistic fine, but not incredibly unbelievable.

Knot3D
07-04-2007, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
But then, you do realise that when they put it all of that realism into L&S, it would be better to just stay off someones line of sight rather than depend on shadows. Then it will lead to the same whining about shadows not being the most important part of gameplay.

No.

You don't grasp subtleties, do you ?

If i would be in a dark spot with my NVG's on, I would still see a head on guard earlier than he would see me. Why ? Because his bare sight is strained already by light/dark levels.

And no, i wouldn't hide in a shadow in a line of path of a guard ; and i don't think most SC players would play it that way because that would be plain stupid. I have always played SC ina way that it would look most convincing to me. I have and never will whine about earlier SC games ; because i am aware about how game engines and computer graphics work ; i know what the limitations are and thus i can reason most short comings of a game.

And besides, staying out of line of sight has been the bread n butter of the MGS franchise for 20 years ; you wouldn't wanna call MGS unsuccesful now, would you ?

Anyway, it seems to me you have a very skewed view upon what is 'realism' onscreen.

I bet if we'd have the some of Ubi team up with the dev team at Crytek with their Crysis engine ; they produce an SC game which mops the floor with all of them.

CoastalGirl
07-04-2007, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
^^^^ Not realistic fine, but not incredibly unbelievable.
It's a video game.

tmgbhot
07-04-2007, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
It's a video game.


I wish more people would realize that

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 12:34 AM
Originally posted by Knot3D:

No. You don't grasp subtleties, do you ? If i would be in a dark spot with my NVG's on, I would still see a head on guard earlier than he would see me. Why ? Because his bare sight is strained already by light/dark levels. And no, i wouldn't hide in a shadow in a line of path of a guard ; and i don't think most SC players would play it that way because that would be plain stupid. I have always played SC ina way that it would look most convincing to me. I have and never will whine about earlier SC games ; because i am aware about how game engines and computer graphics work ; i know what the limitations are and thus i can reason most short comings of a game. And besides, staying out of line of sight has been the bread n butter of the MGS franchise for 20 years ; you wouldn't wanna call MGS unsuccesful now, would you ? Anyway, it seems to me you have a very skewed view upon what is 'realism' onscreen. I bet if we'd have the some of Ubi team up with the dev team at Crytek with their Crysis engine ; they produce an SC game which mops the floor with all of them.

But there are few things I dont understand. Please make them clear.

1.Why can't guards see you when you are moving right in front of them (try it out in the game, the guards don't get alerted on bit)?

2.Why in the first place do guards patrol area with such poor lighting, where you can see what is 3 feet in front of you?

You can play the game the way it convinces you, fine, but then many other people don't. The game doesn't convince me in this respect that, if I were in Sam's place doing the same things that I would be doing, I would be pretty amazed if I didn't get detected.


Originally posted by CoastalGirl:

It's a video game.

So why get so damn worked up if this "video game" is changing.

Vth_F_Smith_
07-05-2007, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by jasiek.rolnik:
Who cares about realism while playing Splinter Cell? Mr. Clancy (just to give you one name out of X) because he is the one that has to approve the entire concept before it goes into production, as long as the game is using his name! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jonathan22222
07-05-2007, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Most of you probably know all of this but still I will just state it in here why the lights and shadow gameplay isn't all that realistic...

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Even if you are in a very dark place, Enemies CAN see you if you are like 3 feet in front of them. Even if they don't see you while you stay put, they should definitely see you while you make a move.
<LI>Light sources as I know it have a much wider lighting range than the game shows it. For example, a bulb seems to light up only about 10 feet in radius, beyond which there is complete darkness. Now obviously thats not the case in real life. <LI>And even shadows of regular objects do not provide that much darkness as lights will reflect of walls and light even those areas to some extent.
<LI>Adding to my first point, if guards are in the dark for sometime, there eyes will adjust to the darkness and will let them see better in the dark. Unless they had been in a lit room recently, they shouldn't really have problem seeing you if you aren't taking cover. Sam wears a black suit, but say you are backed up against a white wall, people will obviously be able to recognize you unless they have night blindness.
<LI>Plus, your visibility doesn't only depend on whether you are lit or not, it also depends on whether places around you are lit. For example, there is a bulb a bit far away, and you don't fall in its lighting radius. Your visibility meter shows zero. Now if someone from behind happens to be looking at the bulb and sees a dark image of you, obviously you are not that invisible.
<LI>If you shoot out one light in a room, guards should think, damn these low quality stuffs. But if all the bulbs begin to break one after the other, they wont just say "Nothing, I am sure there is nothing here."
[/list]

IMO, this his how shadows and lightings should work

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Enemies who are close to you will see you if you are moving, no matter how dark.
<LI>If you are standing in dark area but right behind a directional light, you will be completely invisible.
<LI>Even if you stay put, but the enemies see you in front of a white wall, while their eyes are adjusted to darkness, you will still be seen
<LI>Light sources should have a larger radius and the walls should also reflect some of the light that falls on it.
<LI>It shouldn't be, how dark you are at a particular point, but how camouflaged you are in darkness from the enemy.
[/list]

But don't get me wrong, even with all these errors I still played and loved all the Splinter Cells and I still replay them countless times. I don't really play the multiplayer, but I dont see why Double Agent's sp is so much criticized. Just because they had some daylight missions. IMO, those missions rocked. I mean now, they are more challenging than the other missions where you can safely hide in a dark zone for as long as you want.

There are a couple of ways to be stealthy, one of the being in the dark. Here are some other stealth aspects that could be implemented.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Visual camouflage, being able to blend in to the environment. Another reason why SCC is gonna rock.
<LI>Stay out of line of sight. There should be more emphasis on hiding behind cover and staying out of the guards sight.
<LI>Social stealth is another wonderful thing which I am glad to see they are adding. The enemy shouldn't know that you are an enemy.
<LI>Using Alternate routes to get by guards rather than sneak through them. They already have this aspect in the other Splinter Cells but I want a tad bit more emphasis on that as well.
[/list]

I am totally for any change that makes the series more realistic. I dont want to see the light/shadow gameplay totally taken out. But I want some of these changes to be kept in mind when going about it. Plus, I still think that there will be some dark areas to hide in. dont think they will completely remove that aspect. I just dont want all the emphasis on a single stealth element. So please don't go flaming at Ubisoft because they are trying to change certain aspects. Encourage them and give them ideas as to how to make it as close to perfect as possible.

I agree. Why are the people so angry because Ubisoft wants to make a better game? I heard a lot of bad words on this game, but why are we so angry. I agree with you about lights and shadows . That was some times so unrealistic. But those games was good, too. I can't wait to Spliter Cell Conviction comes out.
T-J
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
But there are few things I dont understand. Please make them clear.


What you don't seem to understand is that SC has never been proclaimed to be a spy *simulator*. It's a game whose rules are intended to make it *entertaining*, not necessarily realistic. It's like saying chess is a stupid game because knights, bishops, kings and queens don't move in those ways as the rules say they do, and that the chess gameplay would improve if all the pieces could roam freely around the board. Sure it would be more "realistic", but how entertaining would that be? And would it still be chess? It's basically the same thing with SC - take away the light/shadow, and it's not SC anymore, regardless of how "realistic" it is.

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 02:09 AM
What you don't seem to understand is that SC has never been proclaimed to be a spy *simulator*. It's a game whose rules are intended to make it *entertaining*, not necessarily realistic. It's like saying chess is a stupid game because knights, bishops, kings and queens don't move in those ways as the rules say they do, and that the chess gameplay would improve if all the pieces could roam freely around the board. Sure it would be more "realistic", but how entertaining would that be? And would it still be chess? It's basically the same thing with SC - take away the light/shadow, and it's not SC anymore, regardless of how "realistic" it is.

Dude, do you realise that chess is a mind game that requires thinking and strategy. The pieces are named queen, bishop, knight...just for the heck of it. If the pieces were named something different and the same rules applied, it would still be chess.

And I dont think SC is a spy sim, as a matter of fact, you people think its a spy sim. Thats why all the flame when Sam stopped being a spy. But what you are failing to realise is that its still a stealth game.

Stealth is the art of going unnoticed. According to situations the proper stealth technique has to be chosen. Stealth is not all about lights and shadows.

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 02:21 AM
One more thing that bothers me in most splinter cell games, if sam can see lasers using his nvg, then why cant he just step over them rather than trying to disable them.

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 02:33 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Dude, do you realise that chess is a mind game that requires thinking and strategy. The pieces are named queen, bishop, knight...just for the heck of it. If the pieces were named something different and the same rules applied, it would still be chess.

Sure - in Norway we call the bishop and knight for runner and horse. My point is that a game is defined by it's rules - change the rules, and it's not the same game. You convictionists don't seem to get that light/shadow-based gameplay is what makes SC. The so-called "social stealth" does not. Deal with it.


And I dont think SC is a spy sim,

Then why all the nagging about realism?


as a matter of fact, you people think its a spy sim. Thats why all the flame when Sam stopped being a spy. But what you are failing to realise is that its still a stealth game.

But it's not SC. It's a lame rip-off from other games. Soccer and tennis are both ball games, but don't you think people would be slightly upset if Ronaldino suddently had to play with a tennis racket because some guy in FIFA though his footwork was becoming "repetetive"?


Stealth is the art of going unnoticed. According to situations the proper stealth technique has to be chosen. Stealth is not all about lights and shadows.

SC is light/shadow-based stealth. Change that, and you kill SC.

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 02:41 AM
Sure - in Norway we call the bishop and knight for runner and horse. My point is that a game is defined by it's rules - change the rules, and it's not the same game. You convictionists don't seem to get that light/shadow-based gameplay is what makes SC. The so-called "social stealth" does not. Deal with it.

And the rules of SC aren't L&S. You don't decide the rules of SC, nor do I. Its the developers who have full freedom to decide what rules their game is gonna have. Till now SC has been all about light/shadow and thats gonna change and I see more people welcoming the change than resisting it. But you anti-convictioneers go to every threads and pollute it with your whining and nothing positive can be discussed.


But it's not SC. It's a lame rip-off from other games. Soccer and tennis are both ball games, but don't you think people would be slightly upset if Ronaldino suddently had to play with a tennis racket because some guy in FIFA though his footwork was becoming "repetetive"?

The basic goal is SC is to get info or complete objectives without being seen. It can be done by lights and shadows or it can be done by other methods. Same applies to football (soccer), basic goal is to make the ball cross the goal line. It can be achieved in many different ways. If a team comes up with a good strategy, it will work for sometime but then eventually other teams will devise methods to counter it. So variation is very important in football.

marinius
07-05-2007, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by psyichic:

F: And yet we haven't seen anyone start thread prior to Conviction saying "I don't want Light and Dark anymore!". We hear people saying instead: "Improve the AI, make the lighting effects more dynamic, add silhouettes,...etc". The series started in it's Light and Dark steath roots and it should continue. If people loose intrest in it then the series shall die but I haven't seen it yet. With everyone rushing out all these "Social Stealth" titles now like the Hitman series and AC people seem to just want to copy them. Sorry but if people want a different stealth game they can go with another series. If you find it "boring" tough. As long as the developers can continue to improve the AI (and they can) the game won't get "too easy" any time soon.



Yes, it is very strange indeed that nobody came forth with these demands of putting an end to L&S-gameplay earlier, seeing as there are so many people fervently against the old gameplay now. Very odd.

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 02:48 AM
Yes, it is very strange indeed that nobody came forth with these demands of putting an end to L&S-gameplay earlier, seeing as there are so many people fervently against the old gameplay now. Very odd.

We aren't against the old gameplay, we are just for the new gameplay.

Brutus: Its not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Same applies to football (soccer), basic goal is to make the ball cross the goal line. It can be achieved in many different ways. If a team comes up with a good strategy, it will work for sometime but then eventually other teams will devise methods to counter it.

And that's when they bring in the [fanfare] tennis rackets!!! Because all change is good, right mister?

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 02:53 AM
And that's when they bring in the [fanfare] tennis rackets!!! Because all change is good, right mister?

tennis rackets : football :: minguns : splinter cell

social stealth : splinter :: new tactic : football

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
tennis rackets : football :: minguns : splinter cell

social stealth : splinter :: new tactic : football

Oops, I seem to have overloaded your system. Was I too "repetitive"?

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 03:07 AM
I just made it clear that your arguments doesn't make sense.

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 03:12 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
I just made it clear that your arguments doesn't make sense.

Yep, very clear indeed. You really made me realize how tossing printers, beating up guards and pulling out hand guns in a crowd is stealthy. Thanks very much for making me see the light, buddy.

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 03:19 AM
Well, it makes more sense than turning off all the lights in a room and going in front of someone saying "you can't see me!"

marinius
07-05-2007, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:

We aren't against the old gameplay, we are just for the new gameplay.



That means that if Ubi had gone ahead and done what they should have done and properly introduced the SC-series to the new console with its core intact and with all the improvements that are possible, you would have been one happy camper wouldn't you? Because you liked the old gameplay, if I understand you correctly.

Now, when the game's become more action-oriented and streamlined for a broader market you believe you'll like it even more. Well, I can see then where you're coming from. But, since you apparently would have been happy for the series to have continued without this complete break with its past (seeing as you wouldn't have known anything else) you should understand why some people don't see the need for these extreme changes. Just think back to how you felt at the time before anything was revealed about SCC. That's how many of us still feel, with the obvious exception of our negative feelings toward Ubi for what they in fact ARE doing to the franchise.

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 03:27 AM
If change isn't good, I should go back to living in my cave http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

marinius
07-05-2007, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
If change isn't good, I should go back to living in my cave http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

I can only conclude from that non-sequiteur that you agree with my argument.

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Well, it makes more sense than turning off all the lights in a room and going in front of someone saying "you can't see me!"

Uhm, pardon? You claim that tossing printers in broad daylight is stealthy, but it doesn't make sense that if you remove a light source, then detection is harder? Your sense of "realism" is becoming slightly twisted.

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 03:41 AM
I can only conclude from that non-sequiteur that you agree with my argument.

I do agree about the game devs going too far from the original formula. But you have to give this game a try. Just because its not your regular splinter cell doesn't mean it will be a bad game. It has many other cool additions.

I wanted some positive discussions on how this new formula could work or made better. But what I see is that everyone is critcising it just because its not a regular Splinter Cell. If you see my first post, I wanted a healthy and positive discussion here. But its now filled with negativity.

And its also non-sequitur how Georg compares change to be introduction of rackets in football.

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 03:42 AM
Uhm, pardon? You claim that tossing printers in broad daylight is stealthy, but it doesn't make sense that if you remove a light source, then detection is harder? Your sense of "realism" is becoming slightly twisted.

Detection is harder not impossible, like the game shows it to be.

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
And its also non-sequitur how Georg compares change to be introduction of rackets in football.

non sequitur:
1. Logic. an inference or a conclusion that does not follow from the premises.
2. a statement containing an illogical conclusion.

Please explain to me how the comparison between diffences in stealth concepts and differences in ball games that I made to underline the fact that changes of rules means changes of games entirely is "a statement containing an illogical conclusion". The only thing similar between old-style SC gameplay and new-style SC gameplay is the name of the franchise itself, and you are obviously of the opinion that same title is sufficient for claiming that it's the same game even if the gameplay changes completely. That claim is your right to make, but it's equally not incorrect to claim that the original game is dead, which is my right to claim. Non sequitur my butt.

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 04:06 AM
Because you still are going to be stealthy. Stealth is like a game in itself. The different methods used are like different tactics used in the same ball game.

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 04:21 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Because you still are going to be stealthy. Stealth is like a game in itself. The different methods used are like different tactics used in the same ball game.

You just refuse to let it sink in, don't you? It's not going to be "different tactics" - light/shadow is *out*. Sneaking around hostile territories as a Third Echelon agent is *out*. Mission updates from NSA HQ is *out*. It's not "different tactics" - it's a different game alltogether. It's a cheap rip-off from other games in order to suit a mass market and reduce company spendings. Applaud it if you will.

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 04:33 AM
light/shadow is *out*

But another social stealth tactic is introduced.


Sneaking around hostile territories as a Third Echelon agent is *out*

The whole country is now a hostile territory with guards hunting him at every corner.


Mission updates from NSA HQ is *out*

Sam has grown a bit older to make decisions on his own and doesn't have to rely on NSA for updates and intels.


It's a cheap rip-off from other games in order to suit a mass market

Yeah its a cheap rip-off. You know why, because the Hitman series has disguises and its the only series in the world that is allowed to have disguises. Assassin's Creed has social stealth and its the only game in the world that is allowed to have social stealth. Bourne Identity has a fugitive runnin from the law and its the only series in the world that is allowed to have that. I see your point.

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 04:48 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">light/shadow is *out*

But another social stealth tactic is introduced.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the result that the entire game is different. But sure: make a game where Sam has become a heroin addict and he needs to evade the FBI while mugging people and receiving "updates" from his dealer, and hey presto: You have another glorious installment in the Splinter Cell series - it's still stealth, right?

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 04:56 AM
With the result that the entire game is different.

Who said every game has to be the same.


But sure: make a game where Sam has become a heroin addict and he needs to evade the FBI while mugging people and receiving "updates" from his dealer, and hey presto: You have another glorious installment in the Splinter Cell series - it's still stealth, right?

Another non-sequitur, Damn! You see all your arguments are losing value because of your BS comparisons.

And people are pissed because they think its a copy-paste of AC's code while they don't really see that PT and CT were a copy-paste of SC1's code

Vth_F_Smith_
07-05-2007, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by Georg_Maximus:
Uhm, pardon? You claim that tossing printers in broad daylight is stealthy Stealth is more than just silently hiding in the darkness/shadows. It's also about distraction and deception technqiues, however it might be you missed the following point: "Just because you're now able to push/toss printers and stuff doesn't mean you have to do it. None will force you to toss a printer at someone."

Let's do a little comparision:

In Chaos Theory the devs gave Sam a knife for the first time because the community always wanted him to have a knife. But just because he now had a one didn't mean you had to run through the entire map, killing every NPC and expect to end up with a perfect stealth rating.

You knew you were able to use it whenever you wanted to but the game didn't force you to use it - not even as gadget.

This time is no different.

Yes you can toss printers, chairs, bottles etc. but the game won't force you to do it - it's up to you if you decide to toss printers at someone/something or not.

Knot3D
07-05-2007, 05:25 AM
Well, either way ; i'm jumping ship to games which have stayed true to their roots/sincere ;

- MGS4
- Assassin's Creed
- SC DA Xb1

Seeing the mixed reactions, i'm sure Conviction sales/judgements won't be a sureshot sales succes. That' ll teach those slick Ubi marketing guys.

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Who said every game has to be the same.

I think we're making progress: if it's not the same game, then it's not Splinter Cell anymore, is it? So why then call it Splinter Cell and change an excellent concept that didn't need change?

Another non-sequitur, Damn! You see all your arguments are losing value because of your BS comparisons.
I'm just pushing your arguments to the extreme to show how stupid they are, my friend. If any kind of stealth makes a good SC game, then junkie-Sam evading the FBI is an acceptable SC game, right? But since you obviously think this is a bad idea, then perhaps it is because junkie-Sam doesn't really fit in with the concept of spy-Sam as established through 4 preceding games? So then we should perhaps use SC 1-4 to decide whether or not SC5 looks to be a good SC game. And there, my friend, you'll see that SC5 has very little in common with the rest of the franchise, and that upsets people.



And people are pissed because they think its a copy-paste of AC's code while they do really see that PT and CT were a copy-paste of SC1's code

Well, ahem: just *maybe* PT and CT were buildt around the same mechanics as SC1 because *they're installments of the same franchise*. Don't fix it if ain't broke.

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 05:58 AM
I'm just pushing your arguments to the extreme to show how stupid they are, my friend. If any kind of stealth makes a good SC game, then junkie-Sam evading the FBI is an acceptable SC game, right? But since you obviously think this is a bad idea, then perhaps it is because junkie-Sam doesn't really fit in with the concept of spy-Sam as established through 4 preceding games? So then we should perhaps use SC 1-4 to decide whether or not SC5 looks to be a good SC game. And there, my friend, you'll see that SC5 has very little in common with the rest of the franchise, and that upsets people.

No actually, you are just proving that your arguments are themselves stupid with your pointless comparisons.


Don't fix it if ain't broke

They aren't fixing it, they are changing it. You dont change your old TV just because its broke.

And if they continue the old SC gameplay, then it will eventually break and it will be too late to try and fix it.

MKCC14
07-05-2007, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by Vth_F_Smith_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Georg_Maximus:
Uhm, pardon? You claim that tossing printers in broad daylight is stealthy Stealth is more than just silently hiding in the darkness/shadows. It's also about distraction and deception technqiues, however it might be you missed the following point: "Just because you're now able to push/toss printers and stuff doesn't mean you have to do it. None will force you to toss a printer at someone."

Let's do a little comparision:

In Chaos Theory the devs gave Sam a knife for the first time because the community always wanted him to have a knife. But just because he now had a one didn't mean you had to run through the entire map, killing every NPC and expect to end up with a perfect stealth rating.

You knew you were able to use it whenever you wanted to but the game didn't force you to use it - not even as gadget.

This time is no different.

Yes you can toss printers, chairs, bottles etc. but the game won't force you to do it - it's up to you if you decide to toss printers at someone/something or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was just about to say the same thing, for some reason they think they must do these things to progress...like there will be an objective to throw printers and chairs at people. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

While in SCCT you had a shotgun and a ridiculously loud sniper attachment...yeah, those were real stealthy. But, you had a choice to use it or not. There was no where in the SP that I was forced to use it at anytime. Just like Im sure I wont be fighting guards and throwing objects at people(most of the time) when I play this game.

MKCC14
07-05-2007, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by Knot3D:
Well, either way ; i'm jumping ship to games which have stayed true to their roots/sincere ;

- MGS4
- Assassin's Creed
- SC DA Xb1

Seeing the mixed reactions, i'm sure Conviction sales/judgements won't be a sureshot sales succes. That' ll teach those slick Ubi marketing guys.
*Sorry about the double post, had to do it*

Yeah, you are buying/playing two games that are both from Ubi Montreal...wow, after all of that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by Vth_F_Smith_:
Yes you can toss printers, chairs, bottles etc. but the game won't force you to do it - it's up to you if you decide to toss printers at someone/something or not.

Sure, but as has been pointed out countless times before: why do ubi work to implement realistic physics that lets you do this stuff in a game that presumably should be about stealth and evasion? It's not like some fancy new gadget or a slight upgrading of game physics, but an entire rebuildt of the game mechanics. It's hard to believe that they did this if was not related to the main concept of the game, and, well, I fail to see how this kind of physics engine supports a stealth concept gameplay. I've recently played through Rainbow Six: Vegas, and there you couldn't even shoot out the light bulbs, but foliage and leaves would fly around during gun battles. Why? Because that supports the game concept and overall idea of how the game will look and feel. So, when given the option of tossing printers around, I guess this this is either concidered "stealthy", or the game will have very little to with what is traditionally associated with stealth.

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
You dont change your old TV just because its broke.

And here's to the king of hard-hitting and to-the-point comparisons. Give him a real applause, people!

MKCC14
07-05-2007, 06:28 AM
Originally posted by Georg_Maximus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vth_F_Smith_:
Yes you can toss printers, chairs, bottles etc. but the game won't force you to do it - it's up to you if you decide to toss printers at someone/something or not.

Sure, but as has been pointed out countless times before: why do ubi work to implement realistic physics that lets you do this stuff in a game that presumably should be about stealth and evasion? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
To appeal the game to new people as I would say. Since SCCT came this all started. Just like the shotgun and sniper attachments, they werent the most stealthy weapons to use was it? I think this is only going to be a not so large part of the gameplay since most of the game should be about creating distractions and proceeding to the objectives. Just like in the walkthrough vid, we saw 1 fight(lasted about 15-20 secs) between guards and the rest of the vid was Sam progressing through the level and blending in with the crowd.

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 06:54 AM
Originally posted by MKCC14:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Georg_Maximus:
Sure, but as has been pointed out countless times before: why do ubi work to implement realistic physics that lets you do this stuff in a game that presumably should be about stealth and evasion?
To appeal the game to new people as I would say. Since SCCT came this all started. Just like the shotgun and sniper attachments, they werent the most stealthy weapons to use was it? I think this is only going to be a not so large part of the gameplay since most of the game should be about creating distractions and proceeding to the objectives. Just like in the walkthrough vid, we saw 1 fight(lasted about 15-20 secs) between guards and the rest of the vid was Sam progressing through the level and blending in with the crowd. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Giving each object contextual independency and authentic physics is a much more work consuming process than just adding a weapon or a gadget. It may look cool, but if doesn't support the overall idea of the game, then it's useless, if not directly counter-productive, and should be dropped. In fact, devs with a clear vision of how their game should look and feel will rather build the levels in such a way that enhances the gaming experience and communicates to the player what to do and how to do it. The more stuff you put in there that can be moved, tossed and destroyed by the player, the less such a vision is conveyed, and the player is left with freedom to do whatever he wants but without a proper game design that gives his actions a purpose. If Sam is to toss a printer, it should support some idea or vision, other than just appeal to new players. It may be that it's only a minor ingredient, but I would rather see the devs work on proper shadow, silhouette and reflection detection than a physics engine that's cool for about 30 mins.

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 06:56 AM
Georg_Maximus, you wont get back your old SC gameplay and nobody in Ubisoft cares. Your whining and all the BS you have filled my topic will go into deaf ears.

Many people like the way SC is progressing and even the guys at Ubisoft are excited about their concept. So some lame whiner wont make any difference to them. If mocking people around gives you some sort of pleasure then you can go on with it. Bottomline is you are wasting your time.

Ubisoft isn't bound to please only you and some of your fellow whiners. As a matter of fact, they can't please everybody. But I hope they take some measures to ban people from this community who talk nothing but trash and pollute every thread with their ****.

SC is changing, either get over it, or go find another game.

BurningDeath.
07-05-2007, 06:56 AM
@Smith, MKCC and aniket:

As far as i know, you are wrong.

Danny LePage, one of the producers of SCC, for example said:

"In previous Splinter Cells, your goal as a player was not to disturb the AI so you could slip by unnoticed, in Conviction, you HAVE to disturb them if you want to avoid their attention, so more than likely, you'll be creating chaos and mayhem to reach your goals."

So the public gun drawing, printer tossing and ***** fighting will take a bigger part than you probably imagine, I reckon.

marinius
07-05-2007, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by Vth_F_Smith_:
Let's do a little comparision:

In Chaos Theory the devs gave Sam a knife for the first time because the community always wanted him to have a knife. But just because he now had a one didn't mean you had to run through the entire map, killing every NPC and expect to end up with a perfect stealth rating.

You knew you were able to use it whenever you wanted to but the game didn't force you to use it - not even as gadget.

This time is no different.



This time is very different indeed. This comparison is unfortunately inadequate. Being given a knife, opting not to use it is a far cry from having the entire core gameplay mechanics tossed out to support a "nu-stealth"- approach with crowds, CQC etc. If we can't agree on anything else, let's at least agree that from what we've been told so far, things have changed dramatically.

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 07:05 AM
But why are all people like, "OMG! Splinter Cell has changed. Its the end of the world."

It wont be a conventional Splinter Cell game but heck, it is still a potentially good game as far as I have seen.

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
But I hope they take some measures to ban people from this community who talk nothing but trash and pollute every thread with their ****.


Ah, you poor little fellow. I'm not bound by *your* wish to see me disappear because you can't stand some resistance and difference of opinion. If you can't take the discussion, then perhaps a *discussion forum* is not your place.

marinius
07-05-2007, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
But why are all people like, "OMG! Splinter Cell has changed. Its the end of the world."



I haven't seen any such remarks in this thread aniket. We're still trying to argue the merits (in this case the lack of such) of changing such a great game.

Oh, and I didn't see anything in Georg_Maximus' posts that warrants your rants and insults. He doesn't whine, he doesn't call you names - yet you want HIM banned? Hmmm, like I said before, the plot is eluding you ever more aniket. Perhaps it's time to focus on something else entirely.

aniket_nayak
07-05-2007, 07:25 AM
Ah, you poor little fellow. I'm not bound by *your* wish to see me disappear because you can't stand some resistance and difference of opinion. If you can't take the discussion, then perhaps a *discussion forum* is not your place.


If you've seen my first post, I wanted some positive discussion about ideas for this new direction they are taking him to. But then again, people have to convert this into a conviction bash thread. This place is filled with such topics and now they have become spams. Couldn't we just discuss how this new game is gonna work. You know very well that you wont get back your previous SC gameplay, then why base all your threads on "I don't like the new way SC is going". Its seriously getting annoying.

If you really dont like the way SC is going and you are sure you wont have any fun playing it then don't even buy it. I am not asking you to leave this community. I am just saying that you want to be in a Convictions community even though you don't like anything about that game. You hate everything about Conviction then why do you even want to discuss this game.

Georg_Maximus
07-05-2007, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
I wanted some positive discussion about ideas for this new direction they are taking him to.

You gave some reasons why you think light/shadow gameplay isn't too realistic, and I asked why realism is such a big issue in a computer game. Doesn't sound like bashing to me.


If you really dont like the way SC is going and you are sure you wont have any fun playing it then don't even buy it. I am not asking you to leave this community.
Just a minute ago you wanted ubi to "ban people from this community who talk nothing but trash and pollute every thread with their ****."


I am just saying that you want to be in a Convictions community even though you don't like anything about that game.
No, I want to be part of a Splinter Cell community, which entitles me to have an opninion about the SC games, right?

MKCC14
07-05-2007, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by BurningDeath.:
@Smith, MKCC and aniket:

As far as i know, you are wrong.

Danny LePage, one of the producers of SCC, for example said:

"In previous Splinter Cells, your goal as a player was not to disturb the AI so you could slip by unnoticed, in Conviction, you HAVE to disturb them if you want to avoid their attention, so more than likely, you'll be creating chaos and mayhem to reach your goals."

So the public gun drawing, printer tossing and ***** fighting will take a bigger part than you probably imagine, I reckon.
Ok...the throwing the printers and fighting is not to disturb the guards. Didnt you notice that? It is there for you to use when you are seen or have the guards on high alert. Just like when you were discovered in the other SC games. Disturbance they meant was causing distractions like stealing a laptop just like we have seen and also blowing up a stand to get guards attention. All of this did not bring about attention to Sam himself, he created a disturbance that will get guards attention somewhere else so that it will be easier for Sam to progress.

So I suppose only when you have been seen or have guards alert attention they you will use these resources to fight them off. All of these things you have seen so far is to get rid of guards when you have been discovered.

CoastalGirl
07-05-2007, 08:38 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
It's a video game.

So why get so damn worked up if this "video game" is changing.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because some of us like it the old way?
And, let me just say, I personally wouldn't pitch a fit if Ubi said they were ending it. What bothers me is that they're treating their loyal customers like ****; attaching a name they know will sell to an idea they're only going with to make back some of their costs on another game. It's insulting.



And the rules of SC aren't L&S. You don't decide the rules of SC, nor do I. Its the developers who have full freedom to decide what rules their game is gonna have.

Silly me, I thought that since they'd released, essentially, six different SC games (not to mention three books...) that implement the L&S gameplay, that that was what the SC's were about. Guess I was wrong...

Oh well...I'm gonna go buy Vampire Rain (goooo realism!!).

MKCC14
07-05-2007, 08:52 AM
Lol, Vampire Rain, which is a even bigger rip-off than what you people claim SCC to be.

CoastalGirl
07-05-2007, 08:59 AM
Originally posted by MKCC14:
Lol, Vampire Rain, which is a even bigger rip-off than what you people claim SCC to be.
LoL Maybe, but at least it's a rip-off of a concept that I like! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

forsaken2shadow
07-05-2007, 10:05 AM
well sam cant be a fugitve forever. maybe he'll get work from the cia or something and he'll have to use light and shadow and day time stealth. without totally abandoning the point of the game. if they ever changed the hitman game this much people would go even crazier. there would be riots in the street.

marinius
07-05-2007, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MKCC14:
Lol, Vampire Rain, which is a even bigger rip-off than what you people claim SCC to be.
LoL Maybe, but at least it's a rip-off of a concept that I like! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I got it yesterday, have played it a bit now. It's looks like a b-version of older SC-games, there's no doubt where the inspiration comes from. Many of Sam's moves are copied, but the animations feel a bit hurried and aren't as fluid as we're used to with Sam. So far, there's no L&S-factor as such, it's more of a stay out of the line of sight-gameplay.

Still, with no more classic SC-games in sight, this game keeps me entertained. It's worth the bucks. Dang, I've just been eaten several times by those damned nightwalkers! They are fast and lethal, jeeez... I'll call it quits for now I guess.

Vth_F_Smith_
07-06-2007, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by MKCC14:
Ok...the throwing the printers and fighting is not to disturb the guards. Didnt you notice that? It is there for you to use when you are seen or have the guards on high alert. Just like when you were discovered in the other SC games. Disturbance they meant was causing distractions like stealing a laptop just like we have seen and also blowing up a stand to get guards attention. All of this did not bring about attention to Sam himself, he created a disturbance that will get guards attention somewhere else so that it will be easier for Sam to progress.

So I suppose only when you have been seen or have guards alert attention they you will use these resources to fight them off. All of these things you have seen so far is to get rid of guards when you have been discovered. Exactly.

For example:

Instead of blowing things up, you may find other ways to distract guards/cops/agents etc., if you have a close look at your environment. Who knows, maybe the alarm of a car nearby may get their attention and lure them away from a position which is vital for you mission.

There is more than just one way, to create distractions & chaos. You only have to take a close look at your environment and then think (but you better think & react fast, because after all you're still a fugitive).

simulacra
07-06-2007, 02:13 AM
2002 "I love splinter cell, I'm gonna distract that guard by shooting a distraction grenade onto the opposing wall in front of him and make it beep so I can get past him, *shoot* *beep beep* *sneak sneak* what a great game!"

2007 "HWHAT?! sam's using a beeping walkie talkie to disturb the guards?? outrageous!!11 that's not splinter cell!!"

That sums up how I feel many in this community is reacting

marinius
07-06-2007, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by simulacra:
2002 "I love splinter cell, I'm gonna distract that guard by shooting a distraction grenade onto the opposing wall in front of him and make it beep so I can get past him, *shoot* *beep beep* *sneak sneak* what a great game!"

2007 "HWHAT?! sam's using a beeping walkie talkie to disturb the guards?? outrageous!!11 that's not splinter cell!!"

That sums up how I feel many in this community is reacting

That more accurately sums up the preconceived misconceptions about other people that you've been displaying in here for quite a while now. What a load of BS.

simulacra
07-06-2007, 03:25 AM
So exactly WHAT about SCC is so bad, apart from your subjective opinions about "what" splinter cell, which obviously differs from the developers.
Like I said before, nobody knows if the game's gonna be as good as CT, but why the set in stone POV that it will suck just because the core gameplay has changed?

aniket_nayak
07-06-2007, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by simulacra:

2002 "I love splinter cell, I'm gonna distract that guard by shooting a distraction grenade onto the opposing wall in front of him and make it beep so I can get past him, *shoot* *beep beep* *sneak sneak* what a great game!

"2007 "HWHAT?! sam's using a beeping walkie talkie to disturb the guards?? outrageous!!11 that's not splinter cell!!"That sums up how I feel many in this community is reacting

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Very true. People just look at what it appears from the outside without realising its basically the same inside.

Georg_Maximus
07-06-2007, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by simulacra:
So exactly WHAT about SCC is so bad

As far as I have understood, people are upset about the *change in gameplay*, not the game itself. You do see the difference, right?

marinius
07-06-2007, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by simulacra:

2002 "I love splinter cell, I'm gonna distract that guard by shooting a distraction grenade onto the opposing wall in front of him and make it beep so I can get past him, *shoot* *beep beep* *sneak sneak* what a great game!

"2007 "HWHAT?! sam's using a beeping walkie talkie to disturb the guards?? outrageous!!11 that's not splinter cell!!"That sums up how I feel many in this community is reacting

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Very true. People just look at what it appears from the outside without realising its basically the same inside. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Basically the same inside...? How do you arrive at that conclusion sir? The core mechanics are fundamentally changed. I can't really see how that makes the game the "same inside"...

aniket_nayak
07-06-2007, 03:56 AM
Its still stealth, instead of light/shadow you have crowd. Instead of high-tech weapons you have common everyday objects. Different situation, thats is. Now instead of you not getting SPOTTED, you should now prevent getting RECOGNIZED. Instead of distraction grenades, we have walkie-talkies.

Do you see the similarities in these differences.

Georg_Maximus
07-06-2007, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Its still stealth,

Oh, Christ, not again!!

aniket_nayak
07-06-2007, 04:10 AM
Do you see now, while I try and make some decent posts, Georg is back with his BS.

Hiding in the dark isn't a major stealth element, because seriously, it works only when there is absolutely no lights around. And that is almost never the case PERIOD.

Georg_Maximus
07-06-2007, 04:19 AM
Yeah, maybe you try to make some "decent" posts, but it's basically the same contents you spew out every single time. Now *that's* repetitive and could need some changes, not only at the "outside", but definitely also on the "inside". But do we really have to take this round again? Let junkie-Sam evade the FBI, and it's a great SC-game, let Sam the mouse evade Jurdenko the cat and it's still a great SC-game, let pervo-Sam wank in the corner without being spotted and it's still a great SC-game. It's all stealth, right??

aniket_nayak
07-06-2007, 04:27 AM
But your BS about this "not being a Splinter Cell game" is more repetitive.

But answer my question which I have put up so many times earlier and still didn't get a reply. Which pshycotic terrorist organisation will have guards patrolling pitch dark areas?

And BTW, way to go with your comparisons which really sucks out all the point of argument.

Georg_Maximus
07-06-2007, 04:40 AM
People are upset because the gameplay has changed. You can say all you want that "it's still stealth", but since "stealth" covers a wide variety of techniques on how to avoid detection, it's simply not enough, because the SC gameplay has previously been about light/shadow stealth, which it is no more due to Ubisoft market strategies. Go on, play the game, enjoy it even - but it's not a SC game anymore.

And of course no-one patrol in pitch darkness, but it's a freakin video game. People usually don't blast demons from hell, battle aliens or cast spells to defeat dragons either, but if that's how the game becomes entertaining, then it works, then it's okay and it's acceptible. As players we accept it, because overly realistic games would perhaps be a tad less fun to play.

aniket_nayak
07-06-2007, 04:49 AM
Thank you finally for a post that doesn't involve mocking me.

IMO, I have always seen Splinter Cell as a stealth game. So I really don't care which stealth element they use as long as it's stealth. The more the number of stealth elements the more variety of techniques you can use to avoid being noticed. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't mind if they devs did put lights and shadows in this game but I dont want all the emphasis on this element alone. But then its just my opinion.

Georg_Maximus
07-06-2007, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Thank you finally for a post that doesn't involve mocking me.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif yeah, right....

So I really don't care which stealth element they use as long as it's stealth.
I never would have guessed...

simulacra
07-06-2007, 07:06 AM
But if the most important thing that made SC appeal to you is the shadow/light in what way are you really splinter cell fans, and not only light/dark-fans?
I can understand the disappointment in your case with conviction, but I'd like to think that splinter cell is more than just shadow/light.

CoastalGirl
07-06-2007, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by simulacra:
I can understand the disappointment in your case with conviction, but I'd like to think that splinter cell is more than just shadow/light.
Of course, but it, along with a few other key concepts, are the foundation of the series. For me, really the only stealth games I play are that type (Thief and Manhunt; Vampire Rain isn't exactly the same, but it's played the same way). I really don't have any interest in other types of stealth games, like Hitman - hiding in plain sight just doesn't appeal to me.

MKCC14
07-06-2007, 10:24 AM
Even though that Vampire Rain isnt based around crowds and all of that, the light/darkness gameplay is basically not even there. I heard that they see you in the dark anyways(vampires).

(The game got 3.6/10 from GT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif)

BurningDeath.
07-06-2007, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Its still stealth, instead of light/shadow you have crowd. Instead of high-tech weapons you have common everyday objects. Different situation, thats is. Now instead of you not getting SPOTTED, you should now prevent getting RECOGNIZED. Instead of distraction grenades, we have walkie-talkies.

Do you see the similarities in these differences.
Sorry, but that's like if BMW decided to make their newest 3-series car to an offroad one (without any replacement for the 3er) and said "It's still a car, you can't complain - the core mechanic is the same!"

aniket_nayak
07-06-2007, 11:00 AM
I find it difficult to compare video games and cars.

I hope that Ubi releases some sort of SCCT solo map editor so that some mod community can come up with new missions and keep you people satisfied and keep this community clean.

But for most other people, they want a change from the same gameplay. Seriously if they continue the same old gameplay, none other than some "light/dark fanboys" will be excited for their games. Other people will be like "Oh! Another jump from shadow to shadow game."

Its not possible for Ubisoft to please em all.

CoastalGirl
07-06-2007, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Its not possible for Ubisoft to please em all.
Not with a single game, no. But who's asking them to make only one game that covers everybody? Not me...

aniket_nayak
07-06-2007, 11:18 AM
Because they need to cover up development costs with sales. If people get bored of this concept then they will run losses and will not be able to cover up development costs.

The first 3 SCs were all the same. Except for the addition of 2, 3 new gadgets and moves it was all the same. No major difference. If we now have some 3, 4 SCs with the same concept, most people will get bored. Note the word "most".

I know that because I have been to many other boards and most people are asking for some change from the same gameplay being repeated over and over again.

BurningDeath.
07-06-2007, 11:52 AM
Strange though, that I've never seen anybody complain about the classic gameplay in the first place...

aniket_nayak
07-06-2007, 11:56 AM
Look harder...

Go through the GS review as well as user review, GT review for SCDA.

They all say that its a brilliant game but they criticise it for lack of change.

MKCC14
07-06-2007, 12:06 PM
I dont know about the GT review, but the GS review is done by a MGS fanboy so of course he would criticize it badly.

aniket_nayak
07-06-2007, 12:12 PM
He doesn't criticise the game, he blames it for recycling the same gameplay.

SPROGGY
07-06-2007, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Woosy:


He is a soldier, many soldiers I know find it hard to quit the army, many here say it's hard and to explain why they're still there tell me I'll never understand. Sam has been this way since the start with his Wife and Daughter, infact if you go back you will see, this is one of the reasons why they split up and their marriage went down hill. You even see it at the end of the first game where he wanted to quit, but gets the phone call and it's back to business again. If Sam could make up his own mind he would of quit a long time ago for real to be with his daughter, we know this is something he can't quit, it's his life.



Sam can indeed make up his own mind. He doesnt do it because he doesnt know how to quit, he does it because of his strong sense of duty and patriotism towards his country. What you are saying is that soliders form a dependancy on the chain of command. They have a hard time living life without the structure and clarity that the military provides them. But what you are saying also doesnt apply to Sam, becasue Sam was a navy SEAL. Special Operation Forces are in many ways the exact opposite of conventional forces. They are independent, free thinking individuals who can see outside of the box and adapt to new situations on a whim, without someone looking over their shoulder. SOF soldiers are unconventional warriors who operate under the radar and in many cases circumventing the chain of command. These are qualities that Sam would possess, and will showcase in SCC.

aniket_nayak
07-06-2007, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by deepego3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:


He is a soldier, many soldiers I know find it hard to quit the army, many here say it's hard and to explain why they're still there tell me I'll never understand. Sam has been this way since the start with his Wife and Daughter, infact if you go back you will see, this is one of the reasons why they split up and their marriage went down hill. You even see it at the end of the first game where he wanted to quit, but gets the phone call and it's back to business again. If Sam could make up his own mind he would of quit a long time ago for real to be with his daughter, we know this is something he can't quit, it's his life.



Sam can indeed make up his own mind. He doesnt do it because he doesnt know how to quit, he does it because of his strong sense of duty and patriotism towards his country. What you are saying is that soliders form a dependancy on the chain of command. They have a hard time living life without the structure and clarity that the military provides them. But what you are saying also doesnt apply to Sam, becasue Sam was a navy SEAL. Special Operation Forces are in many ways the exact opposite of conventional forces. They are independent, free thinking individuals who can see outside of the box and adapt to new situations on a whim, without someone looking over their shoulder. SOF soldiers are unconventional warriors who operate under the radar and in many cases circumventing the chain of command. These are qualities that Sam would possess, and will showcase in SCC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Its about time Sam learnt to make some decisions for himself.

aniket_nayak
07-10-2007, 02:18 AM
Here is a piece of evidence to prove my point about L&S.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/6874/piclx7.th.jpg (http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=piclx7.jpg)

Waiting for people to say that games shouldn't be realistic...

Georg_Maximus
07-10-2007, 02:37 AM
Yep, that's the kind of game we wanna see.

aniket_nayak
07-10-2007, 02:38 AM
Did you notice anything unusual in that pic?

Georg_Maximus
07-10-2007, 02:47 AM
Enlighten me (pun intended)

marinius
07-10-2007, 02:51 AM
Originally posted by Georg_Maximus:
Yep, that's the kind of game we wanna see.

Yes siree, indeed it is! Ah, looks great doesn't it?

aniket_nayak
07-10-2007, 02:57 AM
Sam, standing next to a bright lamp; Guard looking in that direction; Guard has no clue...

Georg_Maximus
07-10-2007, 03:13 AM
Just the way we like it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You don't have to change the entire gameplay for this situation to be more realistic if realism is what you want. Removing the lamp would do.

aniket_nayak
07-10-2007, 03:23 AM
Not just this case, there are numerous other cases where Sam is a bit too invisible.

EskimoBob32
07-10-2007, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Not just this case, there are numerous other cases where Sam is a bit too invisible.
I don't know why you can't understand that we don't care if the game is unrealistic. Does anyone remember Pacman? Classic. Did anyone complain that in real like 2D pizzas don't get chased by colour changing ghosts? Why didn't this affect popularity?

simulacra
07-10-2007, 07:03 AM
Because pacman doesn't depict our world and events that are possible to happen in real life?

BurningDeath.
07-10-2007, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by simulacra:
Because pacman doesn't depict our world and events that are possible to happen in real life?
No. Because the game was fun as it was, just like the original SC-formula is/was. I, for one, don't give a rats arse about realism as long as the game is fun.

aniket_nayak
07-10-2007, 12:14 PM
Because realism=challenge and challenge=annoyance, right? So you people want the game to be dumbed down so that some people find it fun.

Georg_Maximus
07-10-2007, 12:40 PM
Whohoohoo - bow down to mr. intellectual here. I guess anything dumber than 1600 pages of German philosophy is below your dignity, right? A game about Immanuel Kant would be right up your alley, wouldn't it?

aniket_nayak
07-10-2007, 12:48 PM
Blah, blah, blah....Georg, you are just plain dumb.

Moral of this: Never argue with dumb people. They will bring you down to their level and beat you by experience.

simulacra
07-10-2007, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by BurningDeath.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by simulacra:
Because pacman doesn't depict our world and events that are possible to happen in real life?
No. Because the game was fun as it was, just like the original SC-formula is/was. I, for one, don't give a rats arse about realism as long as the game is fun. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, what I meant was that SC IS depicting our world in a realistic fashion, that is the series creed, it has to live up to that in one way or another, true to the name or not, that IS what Tom Clancy stands for.

Georg_Maximus
07-11-2007, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Blah, blah, blah....Georg, you are just plain dumb.

If smartness is your goal, then perhaps video games is not the path. Just a suggestion, before your high horse clouds your head.

Georg_Maximus
07-11-2007, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by simulacra:No, what I meant was that SC IS depicting our world in a realistic fashion, that is the series creed, it has to live up to that in one way or another, true to the name or not, that IS what Tom Clancy stands for.

So you would appreciate the option of making Sam take a leak with the Y-button? It's a freakin' video game - it cannot and will not ever be that realistic anyhow. If dark spots work, then why remove them for something else that's bound to be equally unrealistic, like being attacked by only one guard at a time while 5 others wait for their turn?

simulacra
07-11-2007, 01:55 AM
Because having 5 guards attack you at once is extremely hard to do technically aswell as game mechanics-wise?
But if you detest the realism in SC so much, why not let sam go noclip, hey, he's as a ghost why not let him go through walls, or become wholly invisible so he can stand right in front of a guard and not be seen no matter the lighting.

Situational realsim is extremely important to the series, exceptions has been made before and will continue to be made as long as video games exist, no matter what SC is a game that takes tone fro the real world, there's no sense in letting him pee if it has no bearing on the game, your example was nothing but ridiculous...

EskimoBob32
07-11-2007, 01:56 AM
Wow, you jump to some pretty ridiculous conclusions. I have to say you are the perfect example of logic-free 'discussion' in this forum. (talking to aniket_nayak, not you Georg)

Do you realise the implications of making a game too realistic? Why do people play videogames? Because they consider it more fun than real life. But if videogames were just like real life, how much better would that be?

Imagine a perfectly realistic SC game. You begin at 21:30 and enter the building. After a few minutes, though, you realise that there is still too much activity to properly infiltrate until 23:00. So the first hour and a half of the mission is spent waiting. Wow, I can't wait to play that game.

You want complete realism? After the events of SC1, Sam has a relatively boring career until he retires several years later. In real life, one man doesn't save the world once a year, every year.

I realise these are much more extreme examples of realistic gameplay, but it shows that there is such thing as being too realistic. Realism has got to be balanced with fun. Developers are going to make a game just realistic enough to maximise the enjoyment from playing that game. That's why "Conviction is more realistic!" (whcih we have no proof of anyway) is such a dumb argument.

Georg_Maximus
07-11-2007, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by simulacra:
Because having 5 guards attack you at once is extremely hard to do technically aswell as game mechanics-wise?

Dang - correct! So we're still left with an unrealistic gameplay due to technological limitations. Abandoning the light/shadow-based gameplay does *not* then create a more realistic game. The unrealism has just changed character.


But if you detest the realism in SC so much, why not let sam go noclip, hey, he's as a ghost why not let him go through walls, or become wholly invisible so he can stand right in front of a guard and not be seen no matter the lighting.

Situational realsim is extremely important to the series, exceptions has been made before and will continue to be made as long as video games exist, no matter what SC is a game that takes tone fro the real world, there's no sense in letting him pee if it has no bearing on the game, your example was nothing but ridiculous...

I don't "detest" the realism in SC, but in order to create an appealing story you have to push the limits of what is believable and what is not, in games as well as in movies. So as players we accept that Sam doesn't pee, and we likewise accept that he finds dark spots where he is undetectable. If they made a game that evolved around the ability of going through walls, then we would accept that to, as long as we are entertained.

aniket_nayak
07-11-2007, 03:31 AM
Whoever said I want 100% realism. All I want is that the game doesn't look ridiculously unbelievable. And yes, light and shadow gameplay so far has been ridiculously unbelievable.

And Eskimo, you think you are so logical eh. More realism means more of a challenge. In the current type of gameplay, there is seriouly no challenge. You can safely stay in a dark region for as long as you want. You can create more darkness and move around dark corners without ever being seen. Whatever happened to taking cover behind objects. Watching guards patrol pattern and sneakin past them. I know all this can be done in SC if we wanted to play that way. But seriously its just much easier to shoot out lights and run past guards. Where is the challenge in that. Obviously, you think that making the game more realistic will be more annoying. But I think differently.

marinius
07-11-2007, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Whoever said I want 100% realism. All I want is that the game doesn't look ridiculously unbelievable. And yes, light and shadow gameplay so far has been ridiculously unbelievable.


I don't quite understand this aniket. You've found the previous SC-games to be "ridiculously unbelievable". Why have you bothered to play them then? I would have dropped out after the first one if I felt that way about it. Now, this isn't meant as criticism, I'm simply wondering what have kept you going for all these years. Did you, when you heard about SCC, think to yourself that this was exactly what you' ve been waiting for all along?

aniket_nayak
07-11-2007, 04:11 AM
I am not saying that the L&S gameplay was not fun. Thats why I had been playing so long. But it wasn't challenging at all. Thats my issue there. It was way too easy to get 100% stealth on expert in SCCT. Because there were so many dark spots in a level it felt way too easy. I want stealth games to be hard. Its not really easy to sneak past people as easily the game shows. So would it kill you all if the series got a bit more hard.

In the previous SC we could follow the same strategy in every mission. Shoot/OCP the lights. Crawl past that area and get to another dark spot. Repeat the procedure to get to another dark spot. SCCT made it even easier by adding the EEV. You can just hack computers/keypads/retinal scanners while you are safely in the dark. Even the lights in that game had too small a lighting radius. Beyond which there was complete darkness. But if you see lights in real life they have a much larger lighting area. The only way you can have absolute darkness is when all the lights are off and all the doors and windows are closed.

Even if they had to go on with lights and shadow type gameplay, it shouldn't have been overused like in the previous games. Because guards do not patrol completely dark areas. Terrorists who have money to make a nuclear weapon definitely have the money to buy good lightings. People patrolling in the dark ALWAYS carry powerful flashlights. And guards who suffer from night-blindness do not do duty at nights. Waiting for Eskimo to tell that these arguments lack logic.

marinius
07-11-2007, 04:41 AM
I agree with you that the games definitely would profit from becoming harder. As an experienced player, it more often that not is far too easy to accomplish your objectives, sometimes even when you do so going "full stealth".

I just believe there's so much that could have been done to improve the series from CT with the new gen-possibilities without completely removing the L&S-gameplay.

Georg_Maximus
07-11-2007, 04:49 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
I am not saying that the L&S gameplay was not fun. Thats why I had been playing so long. But it wasn't challenging at all.

Which boils down to what we have said all along: no need to change the light/shadow-gameplay at all - by all means, make it more challenging, something they could achieve by implementing cast shadow, reflection and silhouette detection - for starters. And mind you, the guards *do* use flashlights.

aniket_nayak
07-11-2007, 04:55 AM
Which boils down to what we have said all along: no need to change the light/shadow-gameplay at all - by all means, make it more challenging, something they could achieve by implementing cast shadow, reflection and silhouette detection - for starters.

They could've done that. It would have been a welcome change. But we will have to try the new gameplay and see what it has to offer before completely rejecting it.


And mind you, the guards *do* use flashlights.

Not all guards use flashlights.

marinius
07-11-2007, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by Georg_Maximus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
I am not saying that the L&S gameplay was not fun. Thats why I had been playing so long. But it wasn't challenging at all.

Which boils down to what we have said all along: no need to change the light/shadow-gameplay at all - by all means, make it more challenging, something they could achieve by implementing cast shadow, reflection and silhouette detection - for starters. And mind you, the guards *do* use flashlights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Somewhat off topic: Yes they do, though some started using flares in CT. While that was fairly cool to begin with, I don't quite see why they wouldn't have been using flashlights. Seems rather impractical having to light a flare, which of course will burn out, when you're suspicious of something...besides, giant flashlights can obviously be used for H2H-combat as well.

EskimoBob32
07-11-2007, 05:01 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
And Eskimo, you think you are so logical eh. More realism means more of a challenge. In the current type of gameplay, there is seriouly no challenge. You can safely stay in a dark region for as long as you want. You can create more darkness and move around dark corners without ever being seen. Whatever happened to taking cover behind objects. Watching guards patrol pattern and sneakin past them. I know all this can be done in SC if we wanted to play that way. But seriously its just much easier to shoot out lights and run past guards. Where is the challenge in that. Obviously, you think that making the game more realistic will be more annoying. But I think differently.
Fair enough. I can see that more of a challenge is a good thing, but that can be done differently then making the game 'more realistic'. For example, if guards always had flashlights (which many have in recent games) like you suggested, you could not simply sit still forever in the one spot. That would be a welcome addition. I just think that the game can become more challenging without becoming an entirely new game. It just doesn't make sense to me why they didn't make this a spin-off, or an entirely new franchise, while keeping SC as SC. Or, if a challenge is the only thing that makes you prefer the new gameplay, have a harder SC experience which doesn't necessarily have to be 'more realistic'.

ZeiramSigINT
07-11-2007, 05:07 AM
Wait a minute what's all this talk about not wanting realism? I thought the whole Clancy franchise centered around realistic military stuff. Heck, Mr. Clancy didn't approve of the trifocal goggles simply because they practically didn't exist in real life. The creators had to convince him it was because of gameplay issues.

aniket_nayak
07-11-2007, 05:14 AM
There should've been more guards with NVG/Thermal Goggles in the previous games. Flashlights should have been a must for all guards. Sam should've been given the ability to go prone. Who knows we might see all this in SC6. But for now lets see how the stealth element works out in Conviction. If this game was a complete spin-off then it would've been like GTA, where the cops can magically find you no matter where you hide. The game still implements sneaking past guards, creating distractions and hiding. Its all in a different form. Lets just hope that there is not too much emphasis on CQC and more emphasis on getting past guards unnoticed.

ZeiramSigINT
07-11-2007, 05:17 AM
CQC is fun also if you're stuck with the cops after ya. It gives the non-stealthers and CounterStrike vets a chance.

aniket_nayak
07-11-2007, 05:23 AM
But I hope its not as easy as shown in the trailers. For the game to retain stealth features it should not include brawling with 4-5 cops. Taking guards out one at a time would be better than a POP style fight.

EskimoBob32
07-11-2007, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by ZeiramSigINT:
Wait a minute what's all this talk about not wanting realism? I thought the whole Clancy franchise centered around realistic military stuff. Heck, Mr. Clancy didn't approve of the trifocal goggles simply because they practically didn't exist in real life. The creators had to convince him it was because of gameplay issues.
If you had read carefully, you would notice we said we don't want realism to detract from gameplay. We do want realism, but if it means a bad game then I say screw realism.


But I hope its not as easy as shown in the trailers. For the game to retain stealth features it should not include brawling with 4-5 cops. Taking guards out one at a time would be better than a POP style fight.
Yes, I agree. Many people (me included) fear that the game may degenerate into mindless beat-'em-up action in certain points where cop after cop comes after you.

coltcat
07-11-2007, 12:04 PM
man,this 12 pages thread remind me something.

remenber someday long long time ago
how we argued when we first saw the screenshot showing optical camouflage suit?

simulacra
07-11-2007, 02:13 PM
Whoever said anyone wanted complete realism?
Fact remains, Tom Clancy STANDS for a certain level of realism, if it's ok to bend the rules of realism for S&L, why not for social stealth?

EskimoBob32
07-11-2007, 06:51 PM
I haven't heard anyone saying they don't like social stealth because it's unrealistic, simulacra (or read... whatever). But some people are using it as an argument as to why light/shadow is the past, and why social stealth is the future. Of course, they both have their realistic and unrealistic aspects, but I just don't think it's a valid argument for changing the formula for a good game.

simulacra
07-12-2007, 01:25 AM
No, the argument for that is that some things do get old, espcially when alot of the "shadow"stuff wasn't all that used in the earlier games I'd say that the game mostly was about sneaking around at night.
I can recall several times when I had to sneak around in plain sight and relying more on LOS than actual shadows, even though they were present and used in those tight spots though.

Every time I sat in a shadow and a guard walked right past me in a tight hallway that wasn't all that dark I though like "that's not really logical" but I played on because it was fun.

and to those that argue that there never was any reason to change the gameplay since no-one had requested it or agrued for its need, well, when did the public ever know what they want?
Not trying to insult anyone, but sometimes a reboot of a concept is a good thing.

Any brand creator will tell you this, many products that has been ok:ed through focus groups failed miserably, who knows if we'd even have splinter cell today if ubi hadn't gone against the stream?
Apart from mgs stealth games were scarce, and lest not forget, many of the "hardcore" fanbase here today didn't jump on the splinter cell wagon until PT when multiplayer came.

marinius
07-12-2007, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by simulacra:
No, the argument for that is that some things do get old, espcially when alot of the "shadow"stuff wasn't all that used in the earlier games I'd say that the game mostly was about sneaking around at night.
I can recall several times when I had to sneak around in plain sight and relying more on LOS than actual shadows, even though they were present and used in those tight spots though.

Every time I sat in a shadow and a guard walked right past me in a tight hallway that wasn't all that dark I though like "that's not really logical" but I played on because it was fun.

and to those that argue that there never was any reason to change the gameplay since no-one had requested it or agrued for its need, well, when did the public ever know what they want?
Not trying to insult anyone, but sometimes a reboot of a concept is a good thing.

Any brand creator will tell you this, many products that has been ok:ed through focus groups failed miserably, who knows if we'd even have splinter cell today if ubi hadn't gone against the stream?
Apart from mgs stealth games were scarce, and lest not forget, many of the "hardcore" fanbase here today didn't jump on the splinter cell wagon until PT when multiplayer came.

Don't know about that last part, never played MP and I bought my xbox because of SC1.

I agree with you that the public doesn't necessarily know what it wants. However, the SC-series were doing better and better until Ubi decided to mix it up with DA. As far as I know, the sales weren't dropping before that. I should think then that they would've wanted to keep a good thing going until it became evident that fans wanted a different kind of experience.

EskimoBob32
07-12-2007, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by simulacra:
No, the argument for that is that some things do get old, espcially when alot of the "shadow"stuff wasn't all that used in the earlier games I'd say that the game mostly was about sneaking around at night.
I can recall several times when I had to sneak around in plain sight and relying more on LOS than actual shadows, even though they were present and used in those tight spots though.
I understand your point, but the OP seems to be pointing out that light/shadow gameplay is unrealistic, and therefore the entire core of the series being changed is justified. I was pointing out that it's not a very strong point. Still, it would be a little naive of me to say that there is nothing to argue about, this thread has been going on for 12 pages now; obviously there is more to it than what I see.

aniket_nayak
07-12-2007, 08:12 AM
It makes sense for the developers to shy away from something that was so impractical like hiding in shadows to something more practical.

simulacra
07-12-2007, 08:18 AM
A valid point, but the risk of waiting until a concept starts to lose popularity might be unrecoverable by a change of direction, the saying "get out while you're on top" comes to mind.

marinius
07-12-2007, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by simulacra:
A valid point, but the risk of waiting until a concept starts to lose popularity might be unrecoverable by a change of direction, the saying "get out while you're on top" comes to mind.

Yes, that might very well be their thinking. CT was I think just about as good as they could've made it for the old gen. But the possibilities inherent in the new gen technology would've allowed for the devs to at least make one more classic SC having it "be all it can be". I can't see the sales dropping much with that tactic. If it sold noticeably less, well, that might have signified the end of SC, an end that might now come sooner rather than later anyway.

@aniket: I don't buy into your practical vs impractical argument. There's valid points to be made for both strategies when it comes to what's more "practical". It certainly isn't evident that the this nu-stealth would be a lot more efficient. I assume you're again really talking about the realism aspect of the gameplay, which has been discussed in numerous threads.

EDIT: Not the least of which in this one right here...

aniket_nayak
07-12-2007, 12:44 PM
Why should the developers wait for the franchise to get boring before changing it. It doesn't make sense to me. People are like "if it ain't broke, dont fix it." So basically people here want the SC series to break first and the developers to work their *** of trying to fix it.

Tidenburg
07-12-2007, 12:52 PM
aniket_nayak are you pretending to be stupid or are you actually not getting that when we say broken its metaphorical?
The thing is S&L had a mass-appeal to it, if we want crowd base we will play AC so two similar games are basically canceling each other out, stupid thing to do when they could just keep the solid gameplay they already had. I don't care though, I will buy Convictions for the Story-mode but once its done I will use AC for crowd-based and AC looks like it will have more re-playability. Nothing in Convictions is appealing to me except the storyline, anything which has an impact is in AC and I don't really care for the Spy V Spy MP they could possibly be doing and will only consider buying it for the multiplayer if its our beloved spy v merc or the one I suggested in many other threads.

aniket_nayak
07-12-2007, 01:04 PM
aniket_nayak are you pretending to be stupid or are you actually not getting that when we say broken its metaphorical?

I am pretty sure I know what you people mean. You want the game to have L&S concept to such a far extent that people get terribly bored. The game gets horrible reviews for recycling same age-old gameplay. They have already done all they can with the L&S gameplay. Assassin's creed is a very different game than SC. AC is not a stealth game. It has basic crowd stealth elements in it but that is all. Its more combat oriented and there are even chase sequences.

Imagine if they make 4 more Splinter Cell games with the same L&S concept. It will get stale. Because that concept has a very limited scope for improvement. They can add things like shadow detection, reflections, sillouhette but then thats almost it. And trust me if they added light reflections off walls and next gen features like realistic lighting in the game, then there would be no way a shadow can provide sufficient darkness to hide you. The only way to create darkness then would be to completely turn off all lights in a room. Then we will be hearing whining again regarding "shadows not providing darkness". Its not possible to mix up realistic lighting effect with tradition SC gameplay.

I am not saying that the new gameplay will be 100% realistic. From what I have seen, it needs some polishing. But seriously, its much more practical to blend in with your environment than depending on dark patches to hide.

SilentKiller210
07-12-2007, 11:51 PM
The developers of AC have clearly stated in the past that the game is not a stealth game, and I directly quote from a recent IGN preview:

"Assassin's Creed is not a stealth game. There are elements where you will need to be a bit sneaky, but this is an action title. It's not Metal Gear or Splinter Cell."

Source: http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/802/802794p4.html

That means that the crowd mechanics are not the core of this game, nor are they very detailed. In AC, the crowd is all very similar-looking, and there are an overwhelming amount of people carrying pots over their heads, offering a minor mechanic within the crowd gameplay of knocking people out of your way. You can nudge them or push them out of your way forcefully or simply kill them. You can create minor distractions such as pushing a guard off an edge. Guards have various stages of alertness and their actions on a situation will vary depending on their suspicion. Overall, though, the experience isn't very detailed or complex.

In SCC, however, you are given far more freedom. You can blend into a crowd in several ways to avoid suspicion. You can listen in on others' conversations for a short while before they get annoyed, you can simply attempt to avoid any guards, you can use your hood to attract less attention, or you can create distractions varying highly in degree, from simply giving someone a push to stealing a laptop to creating utter chaos by, say, creating an explosion. You can eliminate guards in various ways, by simply attracting the attention of a single guard and taking him out away from the crowd or by using more forceful and dangerous tactics (ie attracting the attention of all of them), or you could just avoid the guards altogether by using intelligent tactics. I can go on and on, but clearly, SCC's crowd gameplay is far more detailed and complex then AC's slightly simplistic mechanics. (Sorry if I mentioned many things you guys already know, but I'm just trying to make my point clear)

EskimoBob32
07-13-2007, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">aniket_nayak are you pretending to be stupid or are you actually not getting that when we say broken its metaphorical?

I am pretty sure I know what you people mean. You want the game to have L&S concept to such a far extent that people get terribly bored. The game gets horrible reviews for recycling same age-old gameplay. They have already done all they can with the L&S gameplay. Assassin's creed is a very different game than SC. AC is not a stealth game. It has basic crowd stealth elements in it but that is all. Its more combat oriented and there are even chase sequences.

Imagine if they make 4 more Splinter Cell games with the same L&S concept. It will get stale. Because that concept has a very limited scope for improvement. They can add things like shadow detection, reflections, sillouhette but then thats almost it. And trust me if they added light reflections off walls and next gen features like realistic lighting in the game, then there would be no way a shadow can provide sufficient darkness to hide you. The only way to create darkness then would be to completely turn off all lights in a room. Then we will be hearing whining again regarding "shadows not providing darkness". Its not possible to mix up realistic lighting effect with tradition SC gameplay.

I am not saying that the new gameplay will be 100% realistic. From what I have seen, it needs some polishing. But seriously, its much more practical to blend in with your environment than depending on dark patches to hide. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
From what I've read of your opinion, I've gathered that you believe someone like James Bond would make a more realistic spy than Sam Fisher (classic style). Yes, the gameplay is exaggerated, but do you really think a spy is going to try to blend into crowds to infiltrate facilities? It would make much more sense to wait until night time. Not because you become invisible. At night time you are harder to see (especially wearing a black spysuit instead of civilian clothing), guards would be less alert and if they saw something for a split second that then disappeared they'd probably figure they hadn't gotten enough sleep recently. Remember Sam wasn't usually infiltrating terrorist bases to heroically kill them all, he would be searching places that the enemies might not necessarily think to guard so heavily (eg Police Station in SC1, Maria Narcissa in CT).

And I still don't think you understand people's idea of "If it ain't broken, don't fix it". Ubisoft does not care if people start to get bored with their games - if they still sell, they still make them. What marinius is suggesting, I think, is that Ubi makes another traditional SC game. If sales slipped, that's the time to change it. If they were steady or increased, there is still no need to change them even if some people get bored. I'm sorry to say this, aniket, but Ubi would care no more about you getting bored about an old style of game then they care about our outrage over this radical game change.

aniket_nayak
07-13-2007, 12:40 AM
Ubisoft does not care if people start to get bored with their games - if they still sell, they still make them.
Then why do you think that they are taking a new direction.


I'm sorry to say this, aniket, but Ubi would care no more about you getting bored about an old style of game then they care about our outrage over this radical game change.
So you think you have more influence with Ubi that me. You do realize that anti-conviction people are the minority. I don't see any reason why Ubi would listen to you people.

Georg_Maximus
07-13-2007, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by SilentKiller210:
The developers of AC have clearly stated in the past that the game is not a stealth game, and I directly quote from a recent IGN preview:

"Assassin's Creed is not a stealth game. There are elements where you will need to be a bit sneaky, but this is an action title. It's not Metal Gear or Splinter Cell."
Didn't they initially push the AC franchise as based on social stealth, with a strong emphasis on crowd mechanics and how the player could use the crowd to evade attention? If they have down-played this aspect and reduced the missions to simple running and slashing, then it looks increasingly more like a crowd sim with a bit of action thrown in. I'm really starting to doubt the longevity of this game, regardless of how spectacular the graphics look.

In SCC, however, you are given far more freedom.
It does sound somewhat slightly more appealing in the way you describe it here, but I still think this crowd concept should be tested in a new game first to see how the market reacted to it before rebuilding one of their established flagship franschises upon it. It remains to be seen wether or not it was a smart move to leave a well-tried L/S-based concept with a solid fanbase and a lot of next-gen potential before entering uncharted territory. Personally I doubt it.

EskimoBob32
07-13-2007, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ubisoft does not care if people start to get bored with their games - if they still sell, they still make them.
Then why do you think that they are taking a new direction.


I'm sorry to say this, aniket, but Ubi would care no more about you getting bored about an old style of game then they care about our outrage over this radical game change.
So you think you have more influence with Ubi that me. You do realize that anti-conviction people are the minority. I don't see any reason why Ubi would listen to you people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You seem to have trouble understanding points I think I make fairly clear. I don't even see what you are getting at with your first point - would you mind explaining? If you are suggesting DA didn't sell as well as CT because it was the same, I think you are forgetting the stupid plot, the poorly implemented trust meter, the MASSIVE amount of bugs, the lack of technical support, the traffic-light style lightmeter, the daylight missions and the repetitive JBA HQ play. Because I think those are likely the reasons this game didn't sell as well as CT.

As for your second point, you seem under the impression that I think Ubi likes me better than you. No, that's not what I said. What I basically meant was, Ubi likes us both the same. And that is not at all. The situation we are talking about here is HYPOTHETICAL. IF Ubi had kept the series true to original, tried-and-true gameplay, and it had sold as well as they would have liked, they would not care if there were people saying they were finding the formula stale. Similarly, at the moment they do not seem to care that many people are annoyed by the direction the game is taking (although, I suppose that they could be reading everything we say and have already decided that this was a bad idea but figure it is too late to change it; however I doubt it).

marinius
07-13-2007, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
Why should the developers wait for the franchise to get boring before changing it. It doesn't make sense to me. People are like "if it ain't broke, dont fix it." So basically people here want the SC series to break first and the developers to work their *** of trying to fix it.

Aniket, like EskimoBob suggests, you do seem reluctant sometimes to want to understand fairly basic points. I hardly think anybody here wants the SC-series to "break" in any sort of way and although I would like the devs to work their asses off, it should be improving the game, not having to fix anything.

Now, we can disagree on any number of issues, but at least admit this: you understand that we feel this series used to be great and we belive that it could still be great using the same core gameplay with L&S while making the most out of the new gen potential. If you get this, then we can end this discussion and move on.

aniket_nayak
07-13-2007, 01:51 AM
But don't you think that it is L&S gameplay that will suffer the most if next-gen features such as realistic lighting is introduced in the game. The past SC games did not have realistic lighting, hence it was possible to implement that kind of gameplay where shadows were dark enough to hide you. But if they go for realistic lighting effects, obviously shadows wont provide enough darkness.