I preferred the stealth-suit look. But the final game isn't out yet. So I will not judge yet. Some of my friends are looking forward to the new one because of the crowd feature and such.

So first you guys were compliaining that the SC series was growing mundane. That it was just recycling the same material over and over (and that Double Agent was just CT 1.5). Now that the series is taking a turn for the better, you're claiming that by Ubisoft adjusting some traits, that it won't be SC? There's no pleasing you people. I'll bet that if Ubisoft kept all of the features from CT in SC5, you'd still find something to complain about.



I'm betting these are the same people who slammed RE4 (claiming that it wasn't true to series) because it didn't contain/revolve around zombies. Not to mention, aint it a little premature to be passing judgement on a game before it's even been played or demo'd?

pick up a copy of gameinformer there is big feature on sc:conviction after reading it I wanted the game right there and then I Just hope this game lives up to everything they are talking about I'm tired of games getting hype then falling short.

But entirely, this creativity issue has taken an entirely new direction. I think people have failed to sift through the links provided in the story to see where my point is getting to.



Some time back, Gerhard Florin took a stand that the game industry was already paving its way to the creativity side - a side that the old game industry was very capable (and successful) in accomplishing. Link: http://www.qj.net/Does-the-game-industry-really-get-it-now-/pg/49/aid/92789



It seems apparent, however, that world gaming community asked for this since the turn of the milennium, after many of the greatest game designer legends were silenced by sinister, powerful forces: marketing and money. Even many of you readers agreed that the games today needed a change. Link: http://www.qj.net/QJ-asks-does-creativity-matter-to-you-/pg/49/aid/91678



But just because a game company took to the creative side and stressed that they were doing something great, something new to a franchise, should you be fed their sorry-excuse-for-innovation?



Remember that the young designers of the past did their job of art and creativity without the cash and with little technology to sift through gamer feedback. Developers today are financially backed by million-dollar investors and publishers - and yet they steal concepts from other franchises to pass off as new and creative?



We do want a change in the Splinter Cell series. But slapping something from Assassin's Creed to a game that had its own unique personality is pure foolery, if you ask me. It's certain that Ubisoft was trying to pass off another "Look, this one's new and different!" attempt at a franchise fanbase, the same way they slammed the TMNT: The Game six feet under with their lame Prince of Persia: Sands of Time touches.



And I agree with nagger (Unregistered), Double Agent was definitely kicked backa few notches below par. True, Sam Fisher was now being fleshed out, and it was nice to relate to the guy. But we've seen this type of plot develop with the Hitman: Contracts storyline, and Agent 47 just marginally squeezed through my gaming preferences on that installment.



So Sam Fisher is now becoming a Jason Bourne. I ask you gain, in light of my clarifications: is that the creativity that you were asking for? Is that what you wanted?

Well whadda ya know. It does fit Without Remorse perfectly. O.o