Well, we knew this would happen. This type of game was going to segregate some of the old hardcore Splinter Cell fans who didnt want to see the game move in any new direction. Some fans were going to be able to adapt. Others wouldnt. I dont think they have 'watered' it down, they have just progressed into what is popular now. This type of 'spy' is "in". Look what they did with James Bond. Look at Jason Bourne. At Jack Bauer. The movie Taken. That character is "in" and Ubisoft knows that and is tailoring this game to fit that mold. Ubisoft is a business, they are trying to make money. They are trying to deliver a game that many people will pick up. I think the game is going to be a lot of fun, different than Chaos Theory, but fun nonetheless.
Also, what is PoP AC? If you mean Prince of Persia and Assassins Creed, then those a poor examples. The next Prince of Persia game is set to be much closer in style to the original PoP games and how can you say Assassins Creed has been watered down, there's only 2 of them?
You are so mistaken. A lot of gamers don't mind change. Including myself. Look at MGS. From the first to the forth there are many big changes in terms of the gameplay, example with MGS3 and the camouflage and eating system. It changed the way you did a lot of things in MGS, but in its core it was still a stealth based game.
To me to explain it is like yea change can be good as long as the core is still there. The core of Splinter Cell IS STEALTH. So if you take that away....then its not Splinter Cell. Change can be good, example in the comic book world, I was glad of some of the changes Nolan made to the Joker in terms of just superficial appearances. But in terms of the character, he was still the Joker. Now if he would have turned the Joker into a man that just loved to hug and kiss puppies....then yes I would be pissed. But having the company come out and say: "Hey the puppy kissing and loving Joker is a new change. And therefore you should love it, if not your just a grumpy pants that can't see into the "future"." Now of course your right some don't like any changes at all. And to me that is bad as the other extreme.
Today too many gamers just nod their head to what the company is saying with out going....well is this change really a step forward? Or backwards? And to me time and time again many games have taken giant steps backwards and yet the companies call them changes and for the better, which I would call developers being lazy.
Am I cool with Splinter Cell having a spinoff that is more action oriented? Yea that's fine, if that is what they claim this to be then yea whatever. Like how Kojima is doing Metal Gear Rising. I'm sure it will be awesome, but its not the mainstay series of Metal Gear Solid. They named it something else and admitted this is an off shoot of the original series. Which the other MGS's will continue to base themselves on stealth/espionage.
Or how Mario has racing games and so forth, that is perfectly fine, but still keep the same series there. Mario always has his platforming, hell even his 2D platforming is still here. Why? Because that is the mainstay of its series.
My point though long winded is some companies are saying they are changing the series, like they sadly are doing with FF the past few games. And they say that get use to the change cuz its all your getting. Just because you change genres which is the core of a game, does not mean its progression. It means they have switched to another oriented type of gameplay, which I'm cool with, but as long as they remember where the series started.
Splinter Cell was a stealth game, and one of the best ever made. And now to almost gut that out is just not what they should do to the mainstay series. Now I 'm not knowledgeable enough to know if this was suppose to be kind of a "offsides" Splinter Cell game like MG Rising. If so then I would understand this more so. But even with Double Agent it just did not seem as stealth based as it use to be.
I am fine with changes if there are two things going on. 1. either they are changing genres and having an off shoot game like Mario Kart or so forth but continue to make what made those games so good to begin with. And if the new genre is even better for it, fine keep it there. 2. They change things in it but keep the core gameplay intact because that is what makes the game.
To me your quote that I have bolder just seems as an attack to those that love variety in our games, and liked certain games for certain reasons. It would be like them in Mario saying he no longer can jump. It just takes away something, now I'm using extreme examples but it is still the same. New Direction does not equal Good. But many companies say that and people just see it as true. And you act as if that people that adapt have a higher understanding. Adapt means you just accept what they give you no matter what. To me thats not good, as always consumers should be able to challenge it and ask for a better product. Not just take what they give you. But to be fair yes sometimes adapting is a good thing lets not kid ourselves. But at the same time its good to be some what stubborn and like core aspects of a game. Don't just cross your arms when ever something changes, and yet don't embrace everything because they claim its better or different.
I'm not saying by any means you cannot love this game or anything. Hell I might like it for what it is. Just like FFXIII I liked the game as a game. But as a FF game it was the worst one I played. So to me it was not an FF game they should have called it Final Fantasy Lite. Then I could see that more so. So yea the full game of Conviction may be awesome, but it compared to what it originally was a "stealth" game it makes me mad.
Businesses want to make money. Really? Yes of course they do. And they still can. The original three Splinter Cell's made a lot of money, and the First two Bourne movies were out then as well as 24 and they were more popular I think then then they are now since 24 has gone downhill and Bourne trilogy is done for now. So that should make NO DIFFERENCE. Sometimes yes it is good to go where popularity lies, but not always with an already created character. Then name this guy Bob instead of Sam, create a new series if your going for a new market. But SC makes money and it always has, so changing it actually may hurt some of its sales as well. And sometimes doing things different and unique make it more popular. Not everything has to be based off of something popular to make money. You can make something popular if you make it good. It's as simple as that. Batman sure as hell was not popular after B&R. But they took a chance and since it was good it has become a cash cow again.
So yes I understand they want to make money, but SC is a solidified popular name that does not need to fit in to be cool because it already was cool and that is why so many loved it to begin with.
The main reason it makes me mad is we have tons of action oriented games.....why keep making more and more and more and more? I as a gamer like variety. I like different genres across the board. I loved going from ME2, to FFXIII, to GoW3, to Heavy Rain and hopefully Conviction. I like variety. But to me some companies mainly the big ones are always trying to make it more action oriented because the masses don't have patience or something. Splinter Cell was one of the best stealth games ever made. And to me it angers me that it is no longer that. If I want an action game I will play COD or GoW. I should be able to say when I want stealth I will play Thief and Splinter Cell and MGS. The greats.
Again I'm not saying you can't like this I'm just explaining my point of view and why I can't stand this as a gaming thing over all.
And for the last part of your quote. I meant the 08 PoP which was holding your hand a lot of the time. Decent game but too easy. And AC to me still felt lacking of challenge. And just seemed automated a lot. But that is me.
