Ubisoft: Splinter Cell Conviction Exclusivity a "Logical Step"

[AceDiamond]

I'll check it out. But I can't help the nagging feeling that this will be going for the "Hard-Boiled"/"Renegade Cop" (Ala Dead to Rights) theme, which has been done so many times.

Yeah. You know, when this game was announced, it actually had a good story. Sam is on the run and has to help Grimsdottir, the last remaining person he emotionally connected with who he didn't shoot (Shetland, Lambert) or who didn't die in his arms (Wilkes). That's good, it allows for investigation of Sam's character. Now, it's investigating who killed his daughter (even though it was clearly said multiple times that it was a drunk driver), so it becomes standard revenge rather than a jaded vet helping the last person he connected with.

Yeah, and Oswald acted alone (obvious sarcasm!). Look, I don't like the fact they changed the story up a bit, but at the same time it's not like it's suddenly going to be ass-horrible. I tend to give Ubisoft a bit of leeway with the Clancy titles, they haven't done too badly with them. I just watched the E3 trailer and I see nothing wrong at all with this direction of intrigue.

And I'm going to be perfectly honest, the first thing that soured me on Double Agent was the whole "drunk driver kills his daughter" bit. Especially because of Sam's job making it kinda clear there's a very good chance it wasn't something as simple, plus it seemed a bit hamfisted in its usage.

 

[Woe Is You]

You know, it always confuses me which Double Agent people are talking about, since Ubisoft released two Spinter Cell games by that name. The one developed by the guys that developed Pandora Tomorrow on the 360, PC and PS3 and the one by Ubisoft Montreal on the previous gen platforms (but was released at the same time as the other game). The latter one was really more like the Chaos Theory and the original. Completely different games and levels and somewhat different storylines.

 

[Legion]

Splinter Cell has always been the poor man's Metal Gear, as far as gameplay is concerned.

I never got to the level where Sam fights the giant metal robot or giant gun wielding superhumans...

yea... the poor mans metal gear. I also must have missed the robots and fake bullshit while Sam uses real tools and uses moves that are actually taught in SF. Hence making the game more believable and badass.

If poor means we want an actual story with hilarious dark humor then yes its poor.
as a wise man once said:
METAL GEAR!?
METAL GEAR!!
BUGGER ME!

I'm not sure about the last part, but overall I agree.

Metal Gear had well designed levels, AI and guns etc. but it's story was just ludicrous.

Also Pandora Tomorrow and Chaos Theory had some of the best multi player made.

 

[Jumplion]

I find this blatantly ironic/hypociritical/whatever of Ubiosoft considering;

1) People say the "logical" choice is going multiplatform nowadays and going away with exclusives.
2) Ubisoft has ported many Splinter Cell games to other platforms.

 

[timmytom1]

This is OLD news they first announced this `07 ish

 

[Rusty Bucket]

Isn't this the one where they abandon stealth and make it every FPS ever, but in third person?

Sounds like they're doing PS3 owners a favor.

Gotta agree with you Max, Splinter Cell isn't the stealth game it once was.

And yet you'd all be complaining that it was boring and going stale if they'd kept things the same.

 

[Krakyn]

Ubisoft is used to developing well on the PS3, they did it with Assassin's Creed and Prince of Persia, so they don't have an excuse with the difficulty there. I'm pretty sure that M$ bought exclusivity. It's the only thing that makes sense.

I like Splinter Cell, but definitely not a system seller for me.

I love how it's Microsoft being money grubbing whores when they buy exclusive stuff, but it's totally okay when Sony does it with Ghostbusters and Haze.

I said nothing about M$ being money grubbing whores for buying exclusivity. Show me where in my post I said that. All I said was that it was the only thing that makes sense because Ubisoft has a history of developing well for the PS3, and they wouldn't want to miss out on that money unless they were getting it from somewhere else. It's not shady or bad or destructive dealings, it's just what I think happened.

(M$ is the way I denote Microsoft in every post because they're always money-grubbing whores, but not necessarily because of this issue)

 

[Krakyn]

Ubisoft is used to developing well on the PS3, they did it with Assassin's Creed and Prince of Persia, so they don't have an excuse with the difficulty there. I'm pretty sure that M$ bought exclusivity. It's the only thing that makes sense.

I like Splinter Cell, but definitely not a system seller for me.

I love how it's Microsoft being money grubbing whores when they buy exclusive stuff, but it's totally okay when Sony does it with Ghostbusters and Haze.

I said nothing about M$ being money grubbing whores for buying exclusivity. Show me where in my post I said that. All I said was that it was the only thing that makes sense because Ubisoft has a history of developing well for the PS3, and they wouldn't want to miss out on that money unless they were getting it from somewhere else. It's not shady or bad or destructive dealings, it's just what I think happened.

(M$ is the way I denote Microsoft in every post because they're always money-grubbing whores, but not necessarily because of this issue)

I were more of referring to how you spelled it M$, like all bandwagon jumping people do.

Microsoft have been the leading technological money-grubbers of the world much longer than 'M$' or the Xbox have been around. And the personal insults about bandwagon jumping are uncalled for; I did nothing to demean you or your liking of M$. But since you've personally attacked me, I now feel quite happy that my denotation disrupted your raving fanboyism.

 

[Krakyn]

Ubisoft is used to developing well on the PS3, they did it with Assassin's Creed and Prince of Persia, so they don't have an excuse with the difficulty there. I'm pretty sure that M$ bought exclusivity. It's the only thing that makes sense.

I like Splinter Cell, but definitely not a system seller for me.

I love how it's Microsoft being money grubbing whores when they buy exclusive stuff, but it's totally okay when Sony does it with Ghostbusters and Haze.

I said nothing about M$ being money grubbing whores for buying exclusivity. Show me where in my post I said that. All I said was that it was the only thing that makes sense because Ubisoft has a history of developing well for the PS3, and they wouldn't want to miss out on that money unless they were getting it from somewhere else. It's not shady or bad or destructive dealings, it's just what I think happened.

(M$ is the way I denote Microsoft in every post because they're always money-grubbing whores, but not necessarily because of this issue)

I were more of referring to how you spelled it M$, like all bandwagon jumping people do.

Microsoft have been the leading technological money-grubbers of the world much longer than 'M$' or the Xbox have been around. And the personal insults about bandwagon jumping are uncalled for; I did nothing to demean you or your liking of M$. But since you've personally attacked me, I now feel quite happy that my denotation disrupted your raving fanboyism.

Considering how there's yet to be a single person with a good reason for calling them M$ and not just MS or Microsoft, I call all of the people who do so bandwagon jumpers.

But please, convince me that you're not more than just another one of them, I'd love to hear it. Also, I love how you call me a fanboy for not calling them M$.

I'm calling you a fanboy for insulting somebody based on their feelings toward a certain company. Having a strong reaction to my statement that wasn't directed at you seems fishy. Nice strawman though; amateurish, but believable in its execution.

Microsoft, for two decades, have done pretty much everything they can to get extra money. The biggest instance that comes to mind is the antitrust case about 10 years ago, where Microsoft were convicted of monopolization. The next that comes to mind is the incompatibility of software with Windows Vista. When Microsoft upgraded windows to Vista, people had back catalogs of software all the way from 2000, most developed by Microsoft themselves. When Vista came out, there were EXTREMELY low compatibility rates between third-party software and the new OS, and about mediocre compatibility between first party and the new OS. Amazingly, Microsoft came out with first party replacements for all that software that didn't work before, even their own in some cases, and proceeded to charge you again for it.

They did this with the Xbox 360 as well. The backwards compatibility of Xbox games is shaky, but don't they sell patched versions of some games that don't work in disc form over XBL? I can tell you that Sony offered a free DL that fixed all the backwards compatibility problems I had. They also charge an exorbitant monthly fee with XBL; Nintendo and Sony don't require you to pay anything for online service.

I could probably come up with more, but I have to go watch a movie with my gf. Feel free to respond and I'll get back to you.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Ubisoft is used to developing well on the PS3, they did it with Assassin's Creed and Prince of Persia, so they don't have an excuse with the difficulty there. I'm pretty sure that M$ bought exclusivity. It's the only thing that makes sense.

I like Splinter Cell, but definitely not a system seller for me.

I love how it's Microsoft being money grubbing whores when they buy exclusive stuff, but it's totally okay when Sony does it with Ghostbusters and Haze.

I said nothing about M$ being money grubbing whores for buying exclusivity. Show me where in my post I said that. All I said was that it was the only thing that makes sense because Ubisoft has a history of developing well for the PS3, and they wouldn't want to miss out on that money unless they were getting it from somewhere else. It's not shady or bad or destructive dealings, it's just what I think happened.

(M$ is the way I denote Microsoft in every post because they're always money-grubbing whores, but not necessarily because of this issue)

No buying exclusivity for SC wouldn't make them moneygrubbers; if that's what happened, it would make them pretty stupid - SC series isn't exactly a system mover is it? I too consider them moneygrubbers, but more for releasing a broken machine so they could get it out a year before the competition: great for business but it sucks for gamers; who for some reason didn't demand a recall the way any other group of consumers would do. For the record, I think nintendo and sony are grubbers too.

What I find refreshing about this is not the lame excuse but the lame neuteral excuse rather than the "Waaaa, Programming ps3 games is too hard!" excuse Valve and Activision seem to like: even though at this point it's starting to make them look stupid.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.118532?page=2#2281884

 

[JDLY]

Yeah, you're right. Most of Double Agent (From what I could bare to play) was either daytime stealth (Which is BS) or the much more fun and effective run and gun. It's not more fun and effective because I prefer it, it's more fun and effective because they completely ruined the stealth play.

Gotta agree with you Max, Splinter Cell isn't the stealth game it once was.

I'll have to disagree on this one.
These are my opinions.

Daytime Stealth- The missions with daytime stealth are the ones for the terrorist group. In real life, they, being terrorists, would most likely not expect you to be stealth. It goes with the story.

Not much of a stealth game- I had no problems getting 100% on any level (no kills, no knock-outs, never seen, etc...) even on the hardest difficulty. You just have to know what to do and be patient.

As for abandoning stealth totally, I believe it will be like the others- you can go through the whole thing without ever being noticed (execept on special occasions), or you can go through, guns blazing, and still beat the game. It gives you a choice (but calling itself a stealth game, it give you more perks for being stealthy).

As for me, I have a Playstation 3, but have more than enough money to buy a 360 (16 years old, had a job sence 14, save all my money)

P.S. Don't know if I spelled sence right. Message me if I'm wrong and I'll fix it.

 

[Krakyn]

I can't argue with you on all of the Windows Vista parts, since I'm still using Windows XP.

This is one of the main reasons I use M$, so I feel I'm justified there.

But what I wanna comment is the backwards compability thing, at least on Xbox 360 you can play SOME games from the original Xbox. While if you live in Europe and own a PS3, you can play none. So the real money grubbers on that question are Sony, in my opinion.

I don't believe Sony have money-grubbed, just abandoned their players. They're not reselling working versions of their games. Also, Sony did just fine supporting NA and Japan, I'm sorry that Europe got screwed, but they always get by every VG company, really.

Also, Xbox Live costs money for a reason, they keep their servers up so we can play games that are very old without the servers closing due to it being empty.

Making everybody pay for a service that they may not use is ridiculous. Keeping those servers up and running can't take as much money as they're bringing in. They're charging more than they have to and making big bucks off of it. If they weren't money grubbers, what they would do is make scaled plans; I wouldn't want to have to pay to keep other people's really old game servers open if I just bought an Xbox 360 and it's my first introduction to the market.

 

[nova18]

Shame, but by the time Splinter Cell comes out I'll have every console and will no longer have to worry about exclusives.
That will be the best day of my life.


Still, pity Kojima didnt do this with the Metal Gear franchise, would have made for an interesting rivalry.

[small]^^^ too late. [/small]