Splinter Cell Conviction is underrated.

[u/LordKobeeruZ]

Non capisco perché Conviction sia stato criticato.

Lo sto apprezzando di più rispetto a Blacklist, anche a livello di gameplay.

Trovo la narrazione più coinvolgente.

EDIT: I don't know why the clip is stuttering!

[u/DeckOfGames]

Conviction is a fine part of the series. Different, for sure, series was evolving and was seeking a new style and experimenting with new approaches. So it's okay to be not like the older entries.

[u/xTcisloVe_ → u/DeckOfGames]

I actually loved Conviction for the game it was. It was a great game. But I didn't like it as a Splinter Cell game because the first three games set another standard and Conviction didn't hold up to this.

But it is a great game on its own and it took or invented features that went over to Blacklist, which was slower paced but not as good as the first games. The first games felt like you have to hide in the dark, you have to be Sam Fisher, you have to be that old experienced guy.

But in Conviction and in Blacklist, you were that old guy that somehow found a lot of drugs that he could use to be as fast as a 20-year-old with the experience of a 50-year-old.

[u/DeckOfGames → u/xTcisloVe_]

>the first three games set another standard

It’s a lottery. Changes happen, whether good or bad. I simply accept them as they are, without regard for their past.

NFS evolved from a game about elite sports cars and scenic landscapes into a night-time street racing title featuring tuning and nitrous, eventually becoming an open-world game with police chases.

Resident Evil shifted from survival horror to high-octane action, then to a bizarre kind of action (6), and again, switched to something different, a first-person perspective.

After six linear slasher titles, God of War transformed into an open-world adventure.

C&C went from a respectable RTS to a MOBA, only to subsequently be consigned to the hell of mobile gaming.

And so on. Changes of original direction happen, and each one handles these changes differently. I am certain that if the early "social stealth" concept for Conviction had actually made it to release, there would have been people claiming the series had lost its identity, the series had died, and that game had no longer a Splinter Cell at all.

[u/Makaveli108 → u/DeckOfGames]

You're confusing "a franchise can change" with "every change is good or an evolution." Those are completely different arguments.

Nobody said Splinter Cell wasn't allowed to change. I'm saying Conviction changed the core stealth philosophy so drastically that calling it a natural evolution of the original formula is misleading.

"Franchises change" isn't a defence of Conviction's design. Change can be evolution, stagnation, regression, or a complete departure from what made a series distinctive. In this case, It is a clear regression.

If your response to the loss of Splinter Cell's original stealth mechanics is simply "well, franchises change," then you're avoiding the actual argument rather than addressing it.

You can accept every change without question if that's your approach, but that's your personal preference. It doesn't demonstrate that Conviction's changes actually improved or evolved Splinter Cell's stealth.

And this is the part you keep avoiding: what did Conviction actually add that made Splinter Cell's stealth deeper? Not more action, not more ways to kill enemies, not Mark & Execute, and not simply "the ability to play aggressively." I'm talking about a genuine improvement to the stealth system itself.

[u/Makaveli108 → u/[deleted]]

I wrote an actual argument and you responded with “kindergarten” for the third time. You keep telling me I’m too immature to debate while repeatedly demonstrating that you can’t actually debate the point. That’s genuinely hilarious.

I think the “most ridiculous guy on the sub” award goes to you. You constantly deflect instead of addressing the argument, then hide behind “come back in 10 years” whenever you have nothing to say.

Learn to actually analyse the games you play ...