It was indeed staged by the NSA and he didn't hurt anyone, those were false press articles so the JBA believes it.Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
I have the proof here that will confirm it, by Lambert himself. Here's what he says during the loading of the Ellsworth mission in the next-gen version : https://youtu.be/x72aDEQ3X5s?t=963
"We put Sam in Ellsworth prison, not because he was a thief or a murderer but because we needed him there."
And here's quotes from the Splinter Cell Wikia:
• For the next-gen version : "The NSA stages multiple bank robberies and killings to set up Fisher to infiltrate a domestic terror organization known as John Brown's Army (JBA)."
https://splintercell.fandom.com/wiki...ersion_1)#Plot
• For the old-gen version : "The NSA stages a string of armed robberies through Phoenix, Arizona and Denver, Colorado to set up Fisher's cover as a career criminal"
https://splintercell.fandom.com/wiki...ersion_2)#Plot
Ah, okay. I was picturing it as a separate thing; an early draft where something had actually gone wrong and people got hurt. I wouldn't have put it past them... lolOriginally Posted by LuckyBide Go to original post
Thanks to RealRufoo from the Splinter Cell subreddit who posted these Conviction 2007 Art Assets:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Splintercel...ta_art_assets/
![]()
I've always felt the other way around, they shouldn't have shown so much so early. Conviction (the game that was released) was a trainwreck. I've always maintained that too much feedback too early in the process is the death knell to product development and innovation. Whether it is was the "right" direction is one thing. Whether it would have been the "better" direction given the actual outcome is something else entirely.
https://youtu.be/KZazEM8cgt0
It's as true for video games as it is for music. Playtesting and the so-called consumer sciences (not real science, but very little of anything that wears the badge of science today is actually science, especially in business) are the enemy to art. It's the false belief that there is a formula for artistic quality even though there is a formula for product consistency.
It's also why this call for community involvment to "steady the ark" will also lead poor outcomes.
True. And it's probably a thing they shouldn't have done considered how much fans complained about day time missions in DA.Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
We already talked about this on the other thread so we won't restart this discussion, but I'll repeat what I said: it can be very necessary and useful for a franchise being brought after many years, it can work and some examples already proved it. For the devs and creators it's all about finding the right balance and keeping the control on their project, that's it.Originally Posted by generalbrown02 Go to original post
You're free to not engage or otherwise avoid discussion. I'm not roping you into a discussion, and I didn't address you personally. I did address the effort to establish a community led QC team (at the end of the day that's what it actually is), but feel free to not engage. You haven't demonstrated that the processes lead to results, you just operate under the belief that with your guidance the product will be better...but attempting to drop an authoritative hammer as you just did doesn't speak well to your sense of collaboration any way. To be frank, I'm hoping that to whatever extent the development teams are looking at this board, they simply get another perspective telling them that this community led stuff is a pretty a bad idea. Splinter Cell will have a bit of a mountain to overcome this time around I think in trying to sell copies of the game. The pre-work in rallying people is probably a distraction and wasted energy more than anything. If it's a a quality game that delivers on the experience then "courting the community" isn't really necessary, and the time/focus/resources would be better spent on that. The only other question then is whether the community can be useful, and on that question I'd say it's the tail-wagging-the-dog. I've done more than enough product development to know what a disaster that would likely be.Originally Posted by LuckyBide Go to original post
You can keep your negativity and your wrong interpretations for yourself. Just because you had once a bad experience at work with this process doesn't mean you should generalize and doom it forever. You have examples showing that it didn't work in some cases, and there are examples showing that it worked and still is experimented in some studios with some good results.Originally Posted by generalbrown02 Go to original post
"attempting to drop an authoritative hammer as you just did doesn't speak well to your sense of collaboration any way"
What authoritative hammer ? I'm completely aware of the issues that a collaboration could raise so me saying that devs and creators (in a case of a collaboration) should always find the right balance and keep a strict and total control on their project is not authoritarian, it's just common sense.
But if that's what you think of me about this topic then you didn't understand a single word of what I wrote and said.
And don't make ridiculous personal attacks on me because you disagree with my point of view, criticizing my "sense of collaboration" without any proofs shows that you didn't even see how the open letter was built through weeks before we published it.
Besides considering all the sh*t Ubisoft did to this franchise for now more than a decade, yeah I believe that with my guidance the product will be better. But not only with mine, also with the one of all real fans. And I don't have any problem acknowledging that.
However I don't operate only under this belief, I am in general convinced that more collaboration is good everywhere, like in politics with citizens having more control and power over politicians than they have now. That's my opinion and you can disagree with it, but don't come and try to do low-grade psychology on my person in a desperate attempt to discredit me.
I wanted to do this post to clarify some things and put them in order since I hate to see people trying to misinterpret my words to make me look as an idiot or a dishonest person. Maybe it was not your intention by writing this message but I felt it so.
And I engage a discussion and reply to anyone I want and whenever I want so no need to say that you're not roping me in this discussion and repeat it several times.
However I stop replying when a discussion begins to spin in circles and this one is starting to do so, therefore I warn that I probably won't reply again because I have better things to do with my time.