There's no way around this really. It's obvious that Ubi is taking a step in a different direction with this SC. Some people are looking at it as a bad thing, others as the second coming. Personally, I think it's beautiful that they're taking the series in this direction.
 
First, we're getting a bit of a glimpse at the future. I was always curious about how the AC series was going to turn out once they finally brought it into modern times with guns and the likes. I'd like to think that this is a good showcase for that, though admittedly we may be some years off before we get around to that.
 
Secondly, the stealth genre just seems played out at this point. The series needed to be revamped. I played the first SC, Chaos Theory, and Double Agent (whose only redeeming factor was Spies v. Mercs in my mind), and I won't lie. I enjoyed (most of them) thoroughly at the time. But it's time that Sam take a step in a new direction. We seemed to have stepped into an era where people are realizing that having an athletic character will give the player a nearly infinite amount of options for how to tackle a situation. We are seeing more and more characters becoming more mobile, more agile and apparently, much more well-versed in parkour than ever before.
 
It is not as if it's impossible to take a stealthy approach in this game either. It's just that it finally allows you to utilize more of your violent and lethal skills in order to progress, and allows players of the action/adventure variety to still be able to play this game and enjoy it (at least on easy).
 
And c'mon. One of the most frustrating things in Spies v. Mercs was seeing how agile the online spy could truly be, and then proceeding to go into campaign and proceed to wrestle with Sam and deadset attitude on handling like a tank. Sam is a predator. Ubi's only finally starting to take a risk and expand on this.   

I miss Spies VS. Mercs. =(

I always thought the game lacked action and once your discovered, your practically dead. It's nice how many more features you have, however compared to other action games, it isn't as good. It would be better if they only added a bit more action and keep more of the stealth imo. Now it's like more action than stealth.

I really like Conviction and what I've seen and played so far feels so right. I feel SCCT was pretty much the top of how good the old SC's could be, and it would be hard for Ubisoft to top that. If they did try to make something in the same style as SCCT it's likely it wouldn'tve been as good, and just like pretty much all FPS's have evolved into regenerating health and other similarities, the stealth genre had to evolve into this. Gamers now are different from those that were back when stealth games were unforgiving and harsh. Much like gamers now are annoyed if the game doesn't have regenerating health, they do not like being punished for simple mistakes. 
 
I am not saying this applies to everyone, I am just saying it applies to most people I've met recently.

Here's the thing with 'stealth':  it's fun when you choose to do it, but a complete chore when you are forced to do it.  Think Deus Ex or something like that - you can exclusively use non-lethal weapons and stealthyness if you want, or you can choose to carry a rocket launcher - it's entirely up to you.
 
At the moment, a lot of games are getting boiled down until all you're left with is either Gears or CoD - that's great n' all, but people are going to burn out on them.  I think it's increasingly going to become about giving players the tools to tackle situations however they want.   I don't mean contrived situations where you obviously need to use tool x, y, or z - but where you are free to combine them to solve the problem however you want.
 
So long as Convictions doesn't take that structure where you just go "Now I need to do a stealth kill!", "Now I need to use that gun trick!", etc. then I think it will be fine.

" @Jack268: I agree with you absolutely. I don't believe that it was possible for Ubi to continue to make good SC games in the way that they had been after making Chaos Theory. Like you said, that was the pinnacle of the stealth genre, and expansion upon that was virtually impossible. This is simply the latest addition to the series in a climate where the genre is evolving into something morPr "

" @xxizzypop said:

" @Jack268: I agree with you absolutely. I don't believe that it was possible for Ubi to continue to make good SC games in the way that they had been after making Chaos Theory. Like you said, that was the pinnacle of the stealth genre, and expansion upon that was virtually impossible. This is simply the latest addition to the series in a climate where the genre is evolving into something morPr "

I wouldn't agree with that at all. I enjoyed the hell out of Double Agent; in fact, it's my favorite Splinter Cell. I really like how they shifted focus from shooting out lights and hiding in shadows to using cover. It felt a lot more... 'real', I guess? In previous Splinter Cells, I constantly had those "Did he really not see me? I mean, come on, it's not that dark..." moments. In Double Agent, I never got those, because I was hiding behind physical objects. I also felt like the level design, the setting, the story, well, everything, was a lot more polished than it was in Chaos Theory. And even then, I felt like there was a lot of room for improvement on the formula. 
 
So what I'm trying to say is, whether or not you liked the direction Double Agent took the series in, it proves that expanding on the formula is not "virtually impossible". There are tons of changes and improvements that could be made to Splinter Cell -- some minor, some major -- without making it more action-oriented. "

I really like the new direction.  The demo made me pre-order my first Splinter Cell game in a few iterations.  I'm a little worried that all the new mechanics will make the game a little too easy (The demo on realistic was still ridiculously easy), but I do enjoy feeling like a killing machine.

Metal Gear Solid 4. That is all.

When you say the stealth genre is played out, I think you mean the Splinter Cell series has lost a bit of steam. I can't think of any stealth games to come out recently; the last games to properly utilise stealth I played are Thief 3, Thief 2, Thief 1, Deus Ex, and most recently Metro 2033 (which does it brilliantly). So I wouldn't say the stealth genre is played out, just no one has been doing very good stealth games recently.
 
They definitely needed to do something a little different with the Splinter Cell franchise, and making it more action oriented is probably the only thing Ubisoft could have done. Jimbo mentioned above that the game shouldn't feel too contrived, but I think Ubisoft games have always played it safe and had a high level of contrivance and straight-forwardness to them - it's what appeals to the masses. I have no doubt in my mind the Conviction will be another "oh I'm in this situation again, so I have to do this, and only this" type of game, as opposed to a more varied "here's a situation vaguely similar to one I've been in before, I could do this, this or this, or maybe try something completely new altogether" type of game.

" @Icemael said:

" @xxizzypop said:

" @Jack268: I agree with you absolutely. I don't believe that it was possible for Ubi to continue to make good SC games in the way that they had been after making Chaos Theory. Like you said, that was the pinnacle of the stealth genre, and expansion upon that was virtually impossible. This is simply the latest addition to the series in a climate where the genre is evolving into something morPr "

I wouldn't agree with that at all. I enjoyed the hell out of Double Agent; in fact, it's my favorite Splinter Cell. I really like how they shifted focus from shooting out lights and hiding in shadows to using cover. It felt a lot more... 'real', I guess? In previous Splinter Cells, I constantly had those "Did he really not see me? I mean, come on, it's not that dark..." moments. In Double Agent, I never got those, because I was hiding behind physical objects. I also felt like the level design, the setting, the story, well, everything, was a lot more polished than it was in Chaos Theory. And even then, I felt like there was a lot of room for improvement on the formula. 
 
So what I'm trying to say is, whether or not you liked the direction Double Agent took the series in, it proves that expanding on the formula is not "virtually impossible". There are tons of changes and improvements that could be made to Splinter Cell -- some minor, some major -- without making it more action-oriented. "

I'm sorry, but there was some stuff in Double Agent that can only be called what it is: fucking stupid. Why the hell did they have me play in the same tiny area for three fucking levels? And an area where I can't even run, for christ's sake. Eh. "

Well if you liked it, you liked it, that's your prerogative. I have never personally met anyone who enjoyed that game, But if you did, that's great. I just know that a majority of people whom I've spoken to found Double Agent to be needlessly tedious. I don't believe that I cleared much beyond the first level or so before I had to bump down the difficulty to casual. It just felt like such a chore to clear through that game, and those sequences in the terrorist's base just got downright frustrating for most after the first or second time.

I do like some of the steps they've taken but DAMN the game seems easy, even on realistic. 
 
I know, it's a demo and I can't judge, but I can't see what they could do to make it harder unless LKP doesn't leave enemies just shooting at air, and Mark and Execute isn't as powerful in the final retail build. I miss the difficulty of the old SCs, and the only thing that I think is a straight up improvement in Conviction is the fluidity of movement.