So wait.
When CoD doesn't change every release, it get's shit from Facepunch video game commentators about how bad it is because it doesn't mess with the formula that brings in millions of fans every year.
When Splinter Cell does change, it get's shit from Facepunch video game commentators exactly because it does look different, and discounting the fact that it could just be a fun game that just isn't the same as before outright and making baseless assumptions over a 5 minute stage demo.
You can see the same thing in other franchises too. It's pretty funny how the idea of innovation works. When it's a series you don't like you demand the developers to change their game every year to keep things fresh for the millions of people who like the gameplay already, yet when it's a game you actually enjoy playing any change is bad change and the developers aren't allowed to do what they want with their franchise.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;36207842]So wait..[/QUOTE]
CoD always gets shit because it's still the same game no matter what they change.
Bare in mind the game will be "utilizing many of the new gameplay innovations we saw in 2010′s Conviction", which many people believe to be a dissapointment. It's not like people are outright judging the game already, it's merely speculation, besides everyone loves Ironside.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;36207842]So wait.
When CoD doesn't change every release, it get's shit from Facepunch video game commentators about how bad it is because it doesn't mess with the formula that brings in millions of fans every year.
When Splinter Cell does change, it get's shit from Facepunch video game commentators exactly because it does look different, and discounting the fact that it could just be a fun game that just isn't the same as before outright and making baseless assumptions over a 5 minute stage demo.
You can see the same thing in other franchises too. It's pretty funny how the idea of innovation works. When it's a series you don't like you demand the developers to change their game every year to keep things fresh for the millions of people who like the gameplay already, yet when it's a game you actually enjoy playing any change is bad change and the developers aren't allowed to do what they want with their franchise.[/QUOTE]
People only complain about CoD not being inovative cause others say so too, mostly battlefield fanboys. Thing is, CoD simply is a bad game. Bad story, generic gameplay and a badly balanced multiplayer.
[QUOTE=Lukeo;36207858]CoD always gets shit because it's still the same game no matter what they change.
Bare in mind the game will be "utilizing many of the new gameplay innovations we saw in 2010′s Conviction", which many people believe to be a dissapointment. It's not like people are outright judging the game already, it's merely speculation, besides everyone loves Ironside.[/QUOTE]
Exactly They take what works, refine it, add one or two new things, and repackage it, alternating settings every year so it doesn't get stale. When CoD does this it's bad, but when Splinter Cell deviates from this and adds real new mechanics and design that's also bad. What I am trying to demonstrate is the bipolar, schizophrenic nature of armchair game critics and what "innovation" really means. It's a word we have no problem throwing around without specific details, until it happens to a game we actually like. It's easy to go into a CoD thread where everyone is already bashing the game and shouting into the echo chamber "They should change...things!". It's a lot harder to face that change and adopt the same kind of nonchalant attitude when it's a game you enjoy playing.
All the passioned arguments (some good some bad) about Conviction/Blacklist would be the same things you hear from CoD players if they did something ~crazy~ with that series like they did with Splinter Cell. That's all I'm trying to show.
It's like it's a prequel but with older Sam. Would make more sense if he was actually young. In previous games he was more stealthy and slow, here he's fast and active.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;36207944]Exactly They take what works, refine it, add one or two new things, and repackage it, alternating settings every year so it doesn't get stale. When CoD does this it's bad, but when Splinter Cell deviates from this and adds real new mechanics and design that's also bad. What I am trying to demonstrate is the bipolar, schizophrenic nature of armchair game critics and what "innovation" really means. It's a word we have no problem throwing around without specific details, until it happens to a game we actually like. It's easy to go into a CoD thread where everyone is already bashing the game and shouting into the echo chamber "They should change...things!". It's a lot harder to face that change and adopt the same kind of nonchalant attitude when it's a game you enjoy playing.
All the passioned arguments (some good some bad) about Conviction/Blacklist would be the same things you hear from CoD players if they did something ~crazy~ with that series like they did with Splinter Cell. That's all I'm trying to show.[/QUOTE]
You can't classify all change as good change, which is what your argument is doing.
Change is good, but not when you completely remove 90% of the gameplay from Splinter Cell. Chaos Theory was piss-fucking-hard, even on the easiest difficulty. Pandora Tomorrow had missions where you couldn't kill people, and that was nigh-impossible.
But this? This has air strikes, marking targets so you have less input than ever, etc. You can't say "HAY THUR CHANGIN QUIT BITCHIN" because they didn't use the technology to create a more intricate stealth system, or add new ideas into the series, they used the new technology to make a dumber, easier-to-play game.
Yeah I agree, but that's what I'm getting at. I'm talking about overall game design, not the nitty-gritty details of the game in particular. Change is a word who's meaning changes based on circumstance and perspective, it's not a specific thing. When people use it in relation to the CoD series, they just use the word change; they never mention specifics, they just say they should do something to fulfill some arbitrary "innovation" quota. When it comes to Splinter Cell, or The Elder Scrolls, or Deus Ex, or Hitman, or Metal Gear Solid, or any game you like suddenly change doesn't seem so appealing. Suddenly you want to go back to the good old days of the games iterating on each other rather then drastically changing.
My problem is less with the specifics of a given game (ie, stealth importance and difficulty of older Splinter Cells as opposed to the newer generation) and more the language people use and different perspectives as to why, for example. Call of Duty doesn't change much from release to release.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;36207842]So wait.
When CoD doesn't change every release, it get's shit from Facepunch video game commentators about how bad it is because it doesn't mess with the formula that brings in millions of fans every year.
When Splinter Cell does change, it get's shit from Facepunch video game commentators exactly because it does look different, and discounting the fact that it could just be a fun game that just isn't the same as before outright and making baseless assumptions over a 5 minute stage demo.
You can see the same thing in other franchises too. It's pretty funny how the idea of innovation works. When it's a series you don't like you demand the developers to change their game every year to keep things fresh for the millions of people who like the gameplay already, yet when it's a game you actually enjoy playing any change is bad change and the developers aren't allowed to do what they want with their franchise.[/QUOTE]
I think being innovative isn't the problem, people just want a Splinter Cell game to be a focused on stealth.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;36208229]I think being innovative isn't the problem, people just want a Splinter Cell game to be a focused on stealth.[/QUOTE]
If it's anything like Conviction you can still be pretty stealthy. Just because it gives you the choice to be an action hero doesn't mean you can't be a special agent when you want to.
Why are you still defending this piece of shit?
[QUOTE=Hybrid 4F;36208287]Why are you still defending this piece of shit?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, why would someone have differing opinions on entertainment.
Lets just sign up for a message board to have echo chamber conversations where we all say the same thing and no one challenges us.
That sounds like a lot of fun.
People have different opinions than you do. Learn to deal with it or avoid going to video game threads.
[QUOTE=ashxu;36205992]The last game I played was Chaos Theory. I just saw a gameplay video of Splinter Cell: Blacklist.
Marking targets then watching Fisher kill them all with no player input.
blowing up a whole area of enemies with a rocket
What the fuck happened?[/QUOTE]
The idiot who ruined Rainbow Six was put incharge of Splinter Cell. He said that "stealth is too boring" and decided to turn it into an action game. Apparently he wasn't fired.
[editline]5th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Raidyr;36208264]If it's anything like Conviction you can still be pretty stealthy. Just because it gives you the choice to be an action hero doesn't mean you can't be a special agent when you want to.[/QUOTE]
Conviction gave you the choice to be an action hero, but it DIDN'T give you a choice to play stealthily.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;36209297]
Conviction gave you the choice to be an action hero, but it DIDN'T give you a choice to play stealthily.[/QUOTE]
Yes it did. I beat the game on the hardest difficulty without being noticed because I was stealthy.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;36211178]Yes it did. I beat the game on the hardest difficulty without being noticed because I was stealthy.[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously -still- arguing about this? I proved you wrong in the e3 thread and I'll do it again here.
Conviction stealth: Murder everyone before they can react.
Older SC stealth: Sneak around, dispatching guards nonlethally. Killing guards puts your mission in jeopardy.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;36212456]Are you seriously -still- arguing about this? I proved you wrong in the e3 thread and I'll do it again here.
Conviction stealth: Murder everyone before they can react.
Older SC stealth: Sneak around, dispatching guards nonlethally. Killing guards puts your mission in jeopardy.[/QUOTE]
I was talking about stealth in general not nonlethal.
I'd like to see more nonlethal options but that doesn't mean Conviction isn't a stealth game.
[editline]5th June 2012[/editline]
I murdered the shit out of people in Chaos Theory, which is apparently the ~last real splinter cell~
chaos theory was the only good one
[QUOTE=Raidyr;36212566]I was talking about stealth in general not nonlethal.
I'd like to see more nonlethal options but that doesn't mean Conviction isn't a stealth game.
[editline]5th June 2012[/editline]
I murdered the shit out of people in Chaos Theory, which is apparently the ~last real splinter cell~[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but most people don't consider murdering everyone in your path to be stealthy. To play Conviction like the previous games wanted you to you had to practically break the fucking thing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
