I'm truly feeling sad right now.

I just watched the gameplay demo of Splinter Cell: Blacklist on gamespot's website. I went in expecting disappointment. However, the level of sadness I have at the moment was unexpected.

I had bought every single Splinter Cell since the first (except for Pandora Tomorrow, which I rented and beat), and I loved the original three immensely. Double Agent for XBOX was also good, but the 360 version, other than the multiplayer (which I enjoyed), didn't interest me. I ended up not finishing the game, partly due to a bad frame rate drop.

I also bought Conviction at release. At the time, I was very disappointed. What I played in that game was not a Splinter Cell Game. They had taken what the original three (as well as Double Agent, to a degree) had done, and streamlined it to be more action-oriented. It ended up being like a modern-day Assassin's Creed. To me, while the game wasn't terrible, and the story was pretty good at wrapping up the Sam Fisher story, it didn't feel like a Splinter Cell game at all. It definitely wasn't the same feel as the original three games.

So, first off, the new Splinter Cell has a new voice actor for Sam Fisher. They replaced the always-amazing veteran actor Michael Ironside with this doucher, Eric Johnson. That, to me, is essentially blasphemy. Michael Ironside is, and forever will be, the voice of Sam Fisher, at least in my mind. The new guy doesn't sound the same, and he will never be able to fulfill the role the way Michael Ironside has since 2002.

Second off, they stuck to the exact formula they had established in Splinter Cell: Conviction. The entire... experience of Splinter Cell in Conviction had been changed. The old HUD was removed in Conviction and remains removed in Blacklist, which means no real sneaking elements (they removed the sound and light meters, with the only indication of stealth a flashing warning that appears when you've been noticed). The old game's shooting has been completely removed in favor of dumb QTEs that allow you to aimbot/autokill small groups of enemies in one go (probably to compensate for lack of reliable aiming mechanics), and the slower-paced gameplay of earlier games, where you studied enemy patrols and snuck in to remove enemies one by one (to usually hide in such strange places as broom closets and under arctic ice), has been moved to the sideline (it's still there, technically, but the action gets an emphasis).

Thirdly, no night vision! You can't take those out. Period. They removed them in Conviction. They removed them in Blacklist. Yet they have them appear on the cover. Fuck sonar goggles. I want some frakking Night Vision Goggles. EDIT: It has been pointed out there is no proof of night vision, and I agree. However, I strongly believe it will not be in this game, based on Conviction. Even if I'm wrong, my other points strongly state my intentions here.

Finally, and I think this is the saddest point for me, there is a distinct feeling of selling out that I have not shaken in the several years since Conviction was released. They completely reworked Conviction in order to appeal to a broader audience. This was a success, but it was a success at the cost of older fans such as myself. And when a series compromises its old fans by radically changing gameplay in order to appeal to a new audience, that's beyond wrong to me.

In conclusion, Splinter Cell: Blacklist is looking awful. And I'm very sad, because they took a game I've cherished since original Xbox times, perverted it, and completely changed it. And finally, they have lost another fan, because I will not be buying this new installment after what I saw today.

EDIT: I expect to get two different types of responses to this: The "I totally agree, this is not like the original games at all, they changed it", and then the "Shut up, this game is great, so was Conviction, Splinter Cell is just evolving into a more appealing game". I will tell you right now, I'm definitely a part of the former group. I don't discourage argument, but I'm warning you, I will definitely strongly object to any who might say something like aforementioned second group.

I'm truly feeling sad right now.

I just watched the gameplay demo of Splinter Cell: Blacklist on gamespot's website. I went in expecting disappointment. However, the level of sadness I have at the moment was unexpected.

I had bought every single Splinter Cell since the first (except for Pandora Tomorrow, which I rented and beat), and I loved the original three immensely. Double Agent for XBOX was also good, but the 360 version, other than the multiplayer (which I enjoyed), didn't interest me. I ended up not finishing the game, partly due to a bad frame rate drop.

I also bought Conviction at release. At the time, I was very disappointed. What I played in that game was not a Splinter Cell Game. They had taken what the original three (as well as Double Agent, to a degree) had done, and streamlined it to be more action-oriented. It ended up being like a modern-day Assassin's Creed. To me, while the game wasn't terrible, and the story was pretty good at wrapping up the Sam Fisher story, it didn't feel like a Splinter Cell game at all. It definitely wasn't the same feel as the original three games.

So, first off, the new Splinter Cell has a new voice actor for Sam Fisher. They replaced the always-amazing veteran actor Michael Ironside with this doucher, Eric Johnson. That, to me, is essentially blasphemy. Michael Ironside is, and forever will be, the voice of Sam Fisher, at least in my mind. The new guy doesn't sound the same, and he will never be able to fulfill the role the way Michael Ironside has since 2002.

Second off, they stuck to the exact formula they had established in Splinter Cell: Conviction. The entire... experience of Splinter Cell in Conviction had been changed. The old HUD was removed in Conviction and remains removed in Blacklist, which means no real sneaking elements (they removed the sound and light meters, with the only indication of stealth a flashing warning that appears when you've been noticed). The old game's shooting has been completely removed in favor of dumb QTEs that allow you to aimbot/autokill small groups of enemies in one go (probably to compensate for lack of reliable aiming mechanics), and the slower-paced gameplay of earlier games, where you studied enemy patrols and snuck in to remove enemies one by one (to usually hide in such strange places as broom closets and under arctic ice), has been moved to the sideline (it's still there, technically, but the action gets an emphasis).

Thirdly, no night vision! You can't take those out. Period. They removed them in Conviction. They removed them in Blacklist. Yet they have them appear on the cover. Fuck sonar goggles. I want some frakking Night Vision Goggles. EDIT: It has been pointed out there is no proof of night vision, and I agree. However, I strongly believe it will not be in this game, based on Conviction. Even if I'm wrong, my other points strongly state my intentions here.

Finally, and I think this is the saddest point for me, there is a distinct feeling of selling out that I have not shaken in the several years since Conviction was released. They completely reworked Conviction in order to appeal to a broader audience. This was a success, but it was a success at the cost of older fans such as myself. And when a series compromises its old fans by radically changing gameplay in order to appeal to a new audience, that's beyond wrong to me.

In conclusion, Splinter Cell: Blacklist is looking awful. And I'm very sad, because they took a game I've cherished since original Xbox times, perverted it, and completely changed it. And finally, they have lost another fan, because I will not be buying this new installment after what I saw today.

EDIT: I expect to get two different types of responses to this: The "I totally agree, this is not like the original games at all, they changed it", and then the "Shut up, this game is great, so was Conviction, Splinter Cell is just evolving into a more appealing game". I will tell you right now, I'm definitely a part of the former group. I don't discourage argument, but I'm warning you, I will definitely strongly object to any who might say something like aforementioned second group.

from the demo they played it was a day mission with the sun out. so there probably is still night vision on darker levels

@kermoosh: I have no reason to believe so. There was no night vision in Conviction, so I doubt they will bring it back. But you do make a valid point, that sentence was based mostly on my prediction.

I thought it looked pretty good.

@TentPole said:

I thought it looked pretty good.

I'm sorry, but I must ask: Did you play the original games at all, before Double Agent?

I don't know, this series hasn't been great since Double Agent, so it's kinda hard to be disappointed at this point.

@Angre_Leperkan439 said:

@TentPole said:

I thought it looked pretty good.

I'm sorry, but I must ask: Did you play the original games at all, before Double Agent?

All of them at the time of there release except conviction which I never finished. Went through Chaos Theory again last year and don't care for what you are implying.

Ugh, I'm done listening to people moan over the changes in the series. I kind of imagine those that disliked Conviction, didn't find much reason to play into it enough, and so therefore didn't spend the time the game needed for you to get into it. Personally, I loved the original three, Double Agent was pretty meh, and at first, Conviction had me wondering why it was an action game, but my second play through with the game around the time of its release really hooked me, I forgave its differences and embraced what the series could bring next in vain of what Conviction brought. I thought this looked great for the most part, and I'm very excited for it. If they have some stuff that is brought over from the original Splinter Cell's, then that's fine, but by now, I really don't want them to go back to how the first four played.

For everyone saying no Michael Ironside ruins the game for them, you are crazy. He was absolutely awful at points in the last game and it is time for someone else to step up. However, I do believe that the only person who should voice Sam Fisher is Michael Ironside. The best way this could have gone (and the way they SHOULD have done it) is to just change the protagonist to someone else. These games don't need Sam Fisher that badly and it would have prevented pissing people off about the change.

Of course, the game looks very mediocre on top of all this, so I'm going to have to wait and see how it goes. I haven't really hated a Splinter Cell game yet so I'll make sure to at least keep an open mind.

Why is there so much hurt in your butt duder?

@TentPole said:

@Angre_Leperkan439 said:

@TentPole said:

I thought it looked pretty good.

I'm sorry, but I must ask: Did you play the original games at all, before Double Agent?

All of them at the time of there release except conviction which I never finished. Went through Chaos Theory again last year and don't care for what you are implying.

I didn't intend offense. I was merely wondering if you had been a fan before Conviction, as many fans now were not fans of the original (such as Jeff Gerstmann). I hope you enjoy it as much as you may have the original games and/or Conviction. I personally do not think I will.

@NTM: I'd just like to state I played the crap out of Splinter Cell Conviction. Beat the campaign on the hardest difficulty, beat all the hunter maps (or whatever they were called), played most of the campaign (my friend backed out halfway through and we never ended up finishing it), and finished the grand majority of the challenges and unlocks (I'm no completionist, but I unlocked everything for my character). I realize you're saying you're sick of those type of people, I just want to point out I'm not one of them; I most certainly gave Conviction a chance, and while I enjoyed it enough, it was not a Splinter Cell game in my mind.

Get ready for 100 posts calling you whiny for your criticism. If you don't like dust&brown generic middle east shooters, you have no taste.

@wemibelec90: You make a very valid point. I honestly think they should have stopped the series after Chaos Theory, but that's just me. And if they had continued the series as another protagonist, I wouldn't be so angry about the voice change (since obviously it'd be a new character!)

@Vinny_Says: Because hurt butt is all I know, duder. Especially for changing around one of my favorite game franchises!

Why is there so much hurt in your butt duder?

As much as some of us want another Chaos Theory, there's no real reason to be upset anymore. It was obvious after Conviction that the old Splinter Cell was gone (at least for now).

I do still want to check out Conviction, though. It may not look like an SC game, but it did look like a fun game.

You're thinking about this too hard. I said the same thing to Jace earlier- they're no longer aimed at us. There is nothing you can do about it other then not play it.

I played all the originals too, and I rented Conviction, hated it, returned it. It's not for me, and it's clearly not being made for me. Just have to move on.

I am not surprised Michael Ironside isn't in the game, he almost wasn't in the last one (or something... his acting seemed like he didn't want to be). I agree they should've gone a different route, but its not my game to make. I just wont be buying it. My problem is solved- no need to get mad.

Things change, life goes on, other games are made.

Edit: Also, you don't remember the first Splinter Cell to well. It had a heavy reliance on action sequences. The stealth focus was more prevalent in PT and CT (little bit in Double Agent too, but meh that game has other problems)

It's too bad you feel that way, because Blacklist look pretty cool to me. I've played all of the Splinter Cell games, too, and I really found Conviction, while radically different, fun in the end. Things change, and if you don't like that, well, in my opinion, you end up missing out on some good gaming experiences. Yes, it's unfortunate that things must change, but to keep up with the times, they often must. Also, you never know about that new VA , he may end up doing a fine job as Sam!

@CornBREDX: I understand that they're trying to sell the game to more people. But there are ways to innovate and broaden your audience. See: AC3, Bioshock Infinite, Hitman: Absolution, Far Cry 3, etc.

Instead, Ubi chose to just make a 3rd person CoD and call it a day.

I started with Chaos Theory, loved the hell out of that, didn't think Double Agent was that great, really, really enjoyed Conviction and I think this looks totally fine. It looks like a more refined Conviction, and I'm okay with that.

No one reasonable is going to call you dumb for not liking something like that. I thought Conviction was a ton of fun, and appropriately unforgiving if you cranked it up enough. The co-op was also a really great experience, and I still, to this day, hold the ending of the co-op campaign up as one of my favorite multiplayer experiences ever.

If you don't like it, don't play it. If you want to talk about it, go ahead. You raise some good points in your argument. I'm sure there's another super-hardcore stealth game that would tickle your fancy out there now.

This will always be Splinter Cell to me. Fuck Conviction and Blacklist.

@Jace said:

@CornBREDX: I understand that they're trying to sell the game to more people. But there are ways to innovate and broaden your audience. See: AC3, Bioshock Infinite, Hitman: Absolution, Far Cry 3, etc.

Instead, Ubi chose to just make a 3rd person CoD and call it a day.

I know man, and it sucks. Sometimes you can't win. You still have to know when to let it go. Conviction was what proved to me this was the direction they we're going in. I rented it because I wasn't sure based on everything around it (hype, videos, and whatnot). I played it, and it just wasn't Splinter Cell. You kind of realize at that point, or at some point, that it won't always be. So, vote with your wallet. Just don't buy it. This is the direction they're going in.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to be upset, but at some point you have no control.

Also you named several games with better developers then the guys who have been tasked with making modern day Splinter Cell. Just putting that out there =)

@Jace said:

@CornBREDX: I understand that they're trying to sell the game to more people. But there are ways to innovate and broaden your audience. See: AC3, Bioshock Infinite, Hitman: Absolution, Far Cry 3, etc.

I'm not a 100% sure that Hitman Absolution is innovation. The more linear design of levels, absence of Jasper Kyd and Baetson isn't filling me with confidence, guess I'll just have to play it and see. Anyway, more on topic, the creation of a good sequel requires one thing. Balance. Between the new and old, and it doesn't require simplification or making a game easier, it requires innovation while still staying true to the core gameplay mechanics.

I've played almost all Splinter Cell games, and they were great, but tbh Hitman was always my go-to stealth game, and the new one has me worried. In any case, there are quite a few stealth games and franchises out there, it's sad when a franchise you love changes beyond recognition. But you'll always have the older games of the series, as well as other stealth games.

In the end, there's nothing you can do to change it or influence it, so being sad or frustrated doesn't really help....and that argument never really worked for me.

@CornBREDX: I know, Splinter Cell isn't the only thing that I've seen destroyed. I feel the same about Medal of Honor, Rainbow 6, Ghost Recon, Battlefield 3 (only partially) and the list goes on (I want SWAT 5 more than anything.)

But for me, Splinter Cell hit a little harder because I liked it so much. Chaos Theory is responsible for some of the best single/multiplayer experiences I've had in gaming. Ubisoft knew they were losing their original fan base with Conviction, and they went ahead with it. With Blacklist, they could've gone back to what made the series great. Instead, they chose to go even further into action.

I don't think I can change anything, but this is the community where I express my feelings on games, and I did so. You and I are in the same boat on this bud.

I respect your opinion.

But I felt quite the opposite.

I've played all the splinter cells. The first, Pandora Tomorrow, Chaos Theory, Double Agent, Conviction. I didnt play the original xbox version of double agent though. Anyway, I've pretty much played them all.

Below is my verbose response/rant that probably isnt worth reading. TLDR is below the spoiler.

Splinter Cell: Blacklist is looking great. And i'm very happy, because they took a game I've enjoyed for what it's worth since original xbox times, rebooted it with SC Conviction, and refined that to make a new, sexy looking, contemporary product. And finally, they'll likely gain many new fans, because what they showed today looked quite compelling. (seewutididthar?)

Man, if only they made the old school splinter cells in HD so people could go revisit those fond memori-OH WAIT THEY DID IT'S CALLED THE SPLINTER CELL HD COLLECTION GO PLAY IT NOW!

Ahem, so yeah this e3 demo of SCB got me super stoked for more details. I'll definitely be throwing my money at that. They also said Coop was back and bigger, so that'll be badass. AND...Spies vc Mercs is back! OMG!?!?!

I am looking forward to this game, if you couldn't tell.

Oh, well. This game isn't going to cause all of our copies of Chaos Theory to burst into flames. We'll still have that amazing game to play again and again and again.

We're a dying breed OP. No one wants stealth games these days. Or survival horror. Or tactical shooters. They just want they same over the shoulder cover based shooter with different skins on top.

@Casey25 said:

I respect your opinion.

But I felt quite the opposite.

I've played all the splinter cells. The first, Pandora Tomorrow, Chaos Theory, Double Agent, Conviction. I didnt play the original xbox version of double agent though. Anyway, I've pretty much played them all.

Below is my verbose response/rant that probably isnt worth reading. TLDR is below the spoiler.

SPOILER WARNING: Click here to reveal hidden content.

To me, Splinter Cell games historically have had slow, shallow, and all around dull storylines. The main attraction was Sam Fisher who is a kinda-realistic version of solid snake or any other super-military-spy-type-dude that goes on insane covert missions for the government and is an all around badass. In terms of gameplay, they revolved around completing missions that could last an hour and a half or more. Parts of levels required trial and error, learning what gadgets might work where, and getting to grips with the clumsy interaction system and controls. You had to slow down, take your time, and make a plan almost every moment in those games, often times because the controls and ui dont allow for any sort of fluidity or natural movement. A lot of people seem to forget how touchy it could be simply to choose one of 3 options when you're approaching a door or like trying to grab an enemy and having to be directly behind them while they're walking and not having the grab option appear but DONT GET TOOO CLOSE or they'll detect you.

I see SCV or Conviction as a sort of reboot and simultaneously a conclusion of the old Sam Fisher's style and story, respectively. Ubisoft had experimented with more fluid and actiony controls with SC Chaos Theory and DA's spies vs mercs mode, where spies had a much easier time moving around and getting stuff done compared to the Single Player's "Okay, lets do this simple contextual action. K now activate it, wait, i moved too far to the right so i cant do this action. Wait,i just did something else, wtf, this is taking forever."

I like SCV and I like the look of Blacklist because, like how i remember ubi's PR talk went, it makes you feel like Sam is a Predator and not a clumsy, inept meter-maniac who cant handle himself when shit just needs to die. It did stealth combat and stealth tactics well enough and it was uncommon that i felt like i didnt have control. And it had excuses for sam to be more aggressive-stealth than passive-stealth because Sam wasn't just Fifth Freedom status, he was Fifth Freedom AND a furious renegade trying to kill his way to finding his daughter. The Coop in Conviction was REALLY GOOD too but i imagine people who didnt have friends to play coop wouldn't know.

To me, Blacklist looks like the game Ubisoft WANTED Conviction to be, but couldn't quite make it to be. It looks extremely fluid with gorgeous (gruesome) animations and a stronger cinematic intensity. I expect it to play much like Conviction while still capturing a taste of the multitudinous paths players can take in certain parts of the missions.

I'm not going to address every single point where i disagree with you because this is already too long and because opinions, yo. I personally agree with the direction Ubi has taken SC and the balance between fluidity and diversity.

Splinter Cell: Blacklist is looking great. And i'm very happy, because they took a game I've enjoyed for what it's worth since original xbox times, rebooted it with SC Conviction, and refined that to make a new, sexy looking, contemporary product. And finally, they'll likely gain many new fans, because what they showed today looked quite compelling. (seewutididthar?)

Man, if only they made the old school splinter cells in HD so people could go revisit those fond memori-OH WAIT THEY DID IT'S CALLED THE SPLINTER CELL HD COLLECTION GO PLAY IT NOW!

Ahem, so yeah this e3 demo of SCB got me super stoked for more details. I'll definitely be throwing my money at that. They also said Coop was back and bigger, so that'll be badass. AND...Spies vc Mercs is back! OMG!?!?!

I am looking forward to this game, if you couldn't tell.

I respect your opinion, but I have to ask. Why do you like it when games are more 'cinematic'? We're not in a cinema watching a film, we're playing a game at home. I don't understand why developers keep trying to make games more like films. It's only getting worse.

@Soapy86 said:

We're a dying breed OP. No one wants stealth games these days. Or survival horror. Or tactical shooters. They just want they same over the shoulder cover based shooter with different skins on top.

If the games shown at E3 this year were any indication, I'm inclined to agree. Like I said on another thread, it's funny that with all the gunshots and explosions going off in these shooters they still manage to be boring. There's almost no tension in any of the gameplay from the demo of SC shown today.

Lighten up. Jesus Christ.

@JackOhara said:

@Soapy86 said:

We're a dying breed OP. No one wants stealth games these days. Or survival horror. Or tactical shooters. They just want they same over the shoulder cover based shooter with different skins on top.

If the games shown at E3 this year were any indication, I'm inclined to agree. Like I said on another thread, it's funny that with all the gunshots and explosions going off in these shooters they still manage to be boring. There's almost no tension in any of the gameplay from the demo of SC shown today.

series evolve, can;t change that. It sucks but niche games like the Tom Clancy games of old just don't play in todays market. A triple "A" game is so expensive to develop publishers need to make as likely to succeed as possible. Like or not, very slow paced stealth games are done, the industry has moved on because no one liked it )in a general sense) Stealth games now like batman, AC and Hitman are faster paced, it's just the way the genre developed from feedback. People like stealth games because they make you feel so badass when it clicks, but they hated the trial and effort it took to make that click.

And it's a fucking E3 demo, they have limited time to get as many people hyped as possible, that means show a big, action packed, explosion-y sequence.

@JackOhara said:

@Soapy86 said:

We're a dying breed OP. No one wants stealth games these days. Or survival horror. Or tactical shooters. They just want they same over the shoulder cover based shooter with different skins on top.

If the games shown at E3 this year were any indication, I'm inclined to agree. Like I said on another thread, it's funny that with all the gunshots and explosions going off in these shooters they still manage to be boring. There's almost no tension in any of the gameplay from the demo of SC shown today.

I thought I was beginning to go crazy, but I totally agree. I was sitting there watching the Medal of Honor demo and thinking, "This is just as if not more boring that Microsoft's media bullshit at their presser."

@RedRoach said:

And it's a fucking E3 demo, they have limited time to get as many people hyped as possible, that means show a big, action packed, explosion-y sequence.

Watch Dogs didn't need to stoop to that level. The Last of Us didn't either.

@JackOhara said:

I respect your opinion, but I have to ask. Why do you like it when games are more 'cinematic'? We're not in a cinema watching a film, we're playing a game at home. I don't understand why developers keep trying to make games more like films. It's only getting worse.

Why shouldn't a game have strong cinematic elements? Cutscenes have always been an important part of any story based game. The demo's end cutscene looked sharp, with decent facial animations and a somewhat surprising ending.

Developers are making games more "cinematic" i think because developers have so many more resources to work with. It always bugs me when a game will have a janky ten second cutscene just to signify you made some sort of progression (like there probably is in any old 3d puzzle platformer someone might have nostalgia for). But that doesn't make the existence of a cutscene bad.

If you mean you don't like how certain developers' Calling gives them a sense of Duty to prioritize spectacle over actually doing interesting stuff then I understand what you mean. But to me there's nothing wrong with a cool looking stealth kill animation or a smooth looking vault over a car hood. I guess i just have a problem with what Ryan would call jankiness. I HATE JANKINESS!

So yeah in my case i meant to say that I like how real the animations look. A game like Splinter Cell that focuses on you controlling an individual in an action-oriented environment in third person benefits from more life-like animation. A game like Tetris doesn't. And hey, Tetris is just fine without it.

*imagines gruesome death animations of 5 rows after a line piece falls impactfully in place*

@RedRoach: Very well said

@Soapy86 said:

@RedRoach said:

And it's a fucking E3 demo, they have limited time to get as many people hyped as possible, that means show a big, action packed, explosion-y sequence.

Watch Dogs didn't need to stoop to that level. The Last Guardian didn't either.

If i recall Watch Dogs had a dozen cars collide, a gas station explode, multiple people shot to death, and a chase scene ending with a car ramping off a rising bridge. I'd call that action packed and explosion-y myself.

RedRoach is right. Think about how many action oriented games this E3 had some sort of aircraft shot down! Resident Evil, Call of Duty,Halo 4, Star Wars 1313, EVEN BEYOND:TWO SOULS HAD AN EXPLODED CHOPPER!

@Casey25 said:

@RedRoach: Very well said

@Soapy86 said:

@RedRoach said:

And it's a fucking E3 demo, they have limited time to get as many people hyped as possible, that means show a big, action packed, explosion-y sequence.

Watch Dogs didn't need to stoop to that level. The Last Guardian didn't either.

If i recall Watch Dogs had a dozen cars collide, a gas station explode, multiple people shot to death, and a chase scene ending with a car ramping off a rising bridge. I'd call that action packed and explosion-y myself.

But all the action came after... what? Like ten minutes of just walking around and talking to some dude? Also, I meant The Last of Us.

@RedRoach: Maybe developers and publishers should keep their budgets in check instead of dumbing their games down to appeal to any idiot that might pick up a controller.

@Casey25 said:

@JackOhara said:

I respect your opinion, but I have to ask. Why do you like it when games are more 'cinematic'? We're not in a cinema watching a film, we're playing a game at home. I don't understand why developers keep trying to make games more like films. It's only getting worse.

Why shouldn't a game have strong cinematic elements? Cutscenes have always been an important part of any story based game. The demo's end cutscene looked sharp, with decent facial animations and a somewhat surprising ending.

Developers are making games more "cinematic" i think because developers have so many more resources to work with. It always bugs me when a game will have a janky ten second cutscene just to signify you made some sort of progression (like there probably is in any old 3d puzzle platformer someone might have nostalgia for). But that doesn't make the existence of a cutscene bad.

If you mean you don't like how certain developers' Calling gives them a sense of Duty to prioritize spectacle over actually doing interesting stuff then I understand what you mean. But to me there's nothing wrong with a cool looking stealth kill animation or a smooth looking vault over a car hood. I guess i just have a problem with what Ryan would call jankiness. I HATE JANKINESS!

So yeah in my case i meant to say that I like how real the animations look. A game like Splinter Cell that focuses on you controlling an individual in an action-oriented environment in third person benefits from more life-like animation. A game like Tetris doesn't. And hey, Tetris is just fine without it.

*imagines gruesome death animations of 5 rows after a line piece falls impactfully in place*

How about taking advantage of the fact that someone can actually interact with your story and use that for your story exposition? I agree, not all cutscenes are bad, if done right they can help with pacing your game if you have a lot of action. A problem I have with the modern Splinter Cell games is that your character performs way too many actions with too little button presses/skill involved, to the point the game feels like it's playing itself. In Conviction you had the ability to sprint into a room and kill four people with a single button press. This does nothing but make everything you do feel cheaper and watered down. Taking your time to take down single enemies almost feels like a waste of time. Compare this to the previous games where you had to be conscious of every move you made and the position of every enemy. Grabbing and interrogating enemies (after you pulled them back into the darkness) was incredibly visceral and exciting. This is why people like the older Splinter Cell games, the tension in some of the (granted, slower paced) situations was literally palpable.

@Casey25 said:

@RedRoach: Very well said

@Soapy86 said:

@RedRoach said:

And it's a fucking E3 demo, they have limited time to get as many people hyped as possible, that means show a big, action packed, explosion-y sequence.

Watch Dogs didn't need to stoop to that level. The Last Guardian didn't either.

If i recall Watch Dogs had a dozen cars collide, a gas station explode, multiple people shot to death, and a chase scene ending with a car ramping off a rising bridge. I'd call that action packed and explosion-y myself.

RedRoach is right. Think about how many action oriented games this E3 had some sort of aircraft shot down! Resident Evil, Call of Duty,Halo 4, Star Wars 1313, EVEN BEYOND:TWO SOULS HAD AN EXPLODED CHOPPER!

Note that the most intense parts of Watch Dogs and Beyond were the parts without explosions and gunfire.

@JackOhara: I see your point about tension. The games certainly express different tones in the gameplay. A thought out plan in progress and knowing one loud footstep could give you away in early SC games is exciting. Conviction still has its moments, they're just slightly different in tone i'd say. You still need to come up with a plan to deal with a scenario (shoot that explodey thing, then jump on that guy to get the execute ability, then pop the rest of the guys you marked earlier), but it's more of an intense rush of 5 seconds of action rather than 30 seconds of carefully dodging cameras and using your gadget just right. There are interrogations in both games, but Conviction holds them more central to the story i guess and they're more aggressive and violent compared to Sam's older "tell me what i need to know and i might not kill you, punk" interrogations.

And yeah it's strange how the biggest impacts these demos had are often the quietest.

@Soapy86 said:

@RedRoach said:

And it's a fucking E3 demo, they have limited time to get as many people hyped as possible, that means show a big, action packed, explosion-y sequence.

Watch Dogs didn't need to stoop to that level. The Last of Us didn't either.

Both of those are new IP's which instantly get people excited. Watch dogs was setting up a world and introducing an entirely new and unfamiliar world. I think a myhodical stealth sequence would be harder to pace and show off.

And not to mention Ubisoft made that demo before Watch Dogs was announced. They were making a demo, and action heavy sequences have done a good job of getting people excited in the past .hey wanted people to get excited, action sequence is more likely to do that.

EDIT: I just want to make my opinions clear, The Last of Us and Watch Dogs are easily the games I'm most looking forward to in the future. The Last of Us has been my most anticipated game since it's reveal. And I've played and loved every Splinter Cell games (Conviction to a lesser extent) I love slow paced stealth. Old school Tom Clancy games are some of my favourite of all time. The way those series' are going really bums me out. But I understand that those are niche games. And no matter how much you keep your budget in check, AAA games are still hugely expensive. Of fucking course publishers want to make it a safe bet every time. They're developing a game for the modern market, not the niche market. And like I said before, it's an E3 demo, remember when no one believed DA:O was a hardcore rpg because of all the Marilyn Manson trailers at E3? All I'm saying is that they're showing parts of the game that have the most broad appeal possible.

I just found out that the new Sam Fisher voice (and mo-cap actor) is Whitney from Smallville. That kind of blew my mind a bit, so I'm going to give him a pass for now. As much as I love Michael Ironside, I can understand why they wanted to get a new guy in there and, to be honest, Michael Ironside's voice is starting to get slightly too old and gravelly to be entirely comprehensible. Plus, he's still around; they seem to be consulting the hell out of him for the character and whatnot.

As for the gameplay, I'll admit that it did seem a bit action-heavy in that demo, but I'll hold my judgment until I see more than one small segment of the game. Even so, what I did see seemed a whole lot like Conviction, and I really enjoyed that game. I actually liked the more action-oriented gameplay in Conviction; I found some of the later segments of the first two Splinter Cell games (I didn't play Chaos Theory or Double Agent) to be too frustratingly trial-and-error to be entirely enjoyable. I mean, I really like all of the Splinter Cell games that I've played, but I remember also getting really frustrated by some of Pandora Tomorrow in particular, so I'm open to a push toward more action-oriented gameplay like Conviction so long as they don't eliminate the stealth aspect entirely. They just really need to strike a good balance between stealth and action. I still want to sneak around in the shadows, but I don't want to have to die or restart every single time I get spotted.

Also, please bring back the split jump. I love that thing.

I think that this game looks undeniably cool and I totally want to play it. I just wish they wouldn't call it Splinter Cell.

I love Conviction, it was an utterly brilliant game, and I don't like this Demo. What made it great was that the gameplay suited the tone - I loved the story and thought the more action-oriented, but still stealth based gameplay was exactly what it needed for the rogue sam storyline. This demo, however, seems to be putting the new gameplay with a tone of the old games, which had stories that could not be less interesting to me. Conviction had that edge, that personal touch, Sam was a man losing it - but this is just another "save the world" mission.

I personally would, however, have liked Conviction to be a tad more viable to be played stealth-silent, but overall, it was still a brilliant game. Blacklist, from everything I've seen, does not inspire that in me.

Well...You can move bodies in Black List...

I played Chaos Theory. I hated its trial-and-error gameplay, as well as its clunky control and gunplay. Conviction streamlined it for the best. Blacklist seems to be a successor to that formula, and that's okay.

I honestly don't see the "Third person COD" argument. You still have to sneak, you're just given more options. Nothing sucked than getting forced into a frustrating gunfight if you got spotted, at least in Conviction I could save my ass with a simple melee takedown and not get attention. If anything I'd love to see the older SC games with the mechanics of Conviction/Blacklist. I bet that'd make the games 10 times more enjoyable.

I'm going to keep an open mind on it, I loved most of the splinter cells, didn't care for double agent. And I liked convection overall, the coop was the main draw for me. My biggest grip is the voice change, not that it's not Ironsides but that they didn't just stick in a new main character. They keep trying to rewrite fisher, he's old, he's not, his daughter is dead, maybe not. What's funny is the combat for blacklist looks like ac3

@TonicBH said:

I played Chaos Theory. I hated its trial-and-error gameplay, as well as its clunky control and gunplay. Conviction streamlined it for the best. Blacklist seems to be a successor to that formula, and that's okay.

I honestly don't see the "Third person COD" argument. You still have to sneak, you're just given more options. Nothing sucked than getting forced into a frustrating gunfight if you got spotted, at least in Conviction I could save my ass with a simple melee takedown and not get attention. If anything I'd love to see the older SC games with the mechanics of Conviction/Blacklist. I bet that'd make the games 10 times more enjoyable.

Ten times more enjoyable by who? People who want action games or people who want stealth games? You had a gun in Chaos Theory but it's not like you ever needed to use it. You had many ways of knocking dudes out in the shadows (hand to hand, sticky shocker, sticky cam, etc.) so the gun became superfluous, other than being used to launch gadgets.

Why are people bitching about losing Ironside? He mumbled and sounded drunk through the whole last game.

This is like the third thread about Blacklist being bad.

I have bought and finished every Splinter Cell (on its release) and I LOVE every single one of them, Conviction included. But for me the experience is more about story and character than gameplay. I must admit though, the loss of Ironside is seriously making me dislike the look of Blacklist. and is it just me? or does Sam look younger in Blacklist than he did in Conviction