i dont want sc conviction i want hitman

[Someot]

well i would expect it to be different, with the whole new engine

[brkckl]

Nirvana you're my man.Really.I just registered here to say this.If you are gonna release hitman absolution like this.Don't bother please.I am saying this from my heart.I played all hitman games.All of them were awesome.But this...

[xAcerbusx]

I have to say it really did feel like Splinter Cell: Conviction, at least the mission we saw did...

...and, really, I don't understand why. Conviction didn't sell as well as the previous Splinter Cell games. It was a critical, artistic, and financial failure. Why emulate it in any regard?

If that's merely a linear tutorial mission, which gives way to the big, open levels we all love about the series, I can deal with it. It's certainly at least a possibility. But based on what we've seen, it gives me far too many flashbacks to the disappointment I felt upon the release of Conviction.

[LittleEagle]

I think this game is better than SC : Conviction .

[nirvana1]

Originally Posted by LittleEagle

I think this game is better than SC : Conviction .

sure,but very same to scc

[nirvana1]

Originally Posted by brkckl

Nirvana you're my man.Really.I just registered here to say this.If you are gonna release hitman absolution like this.Don't bother please.I am saying this from my heart.I played all hitman games.All of them were awesome.But this...

yeah,maybe they don"t hear us, but however we will say what we want or not

[LittleEagle]

Originally Posted by nirvana1

sure,but very same to scc

Yeah , but I sure this game must has something is very different

[kheammachart]

Originally Posted by LittleEagle

Yeah , but I sure this game must has something is very different

Yeah , it's must has something is different from another games

BECAUSE THIS GAME IS ROCK

[itsonyourhead]

I got to be honest. As far from Hitman as Absolution is looking to be, it still looks better than Splinter Cell Conviction. Nevertheless. It's completely unacceptable.

[Platinumoxicity]

There's this urban legend, or mass delusion, that has no origin, that is commonly accepted as truth. And that lie is that an audience that is 3 times bigger has a hundred times more retards. So when a game developer takes an old niche franchise and tries to make it appeal to a bigger audience, they somehow insist on making it dumber. But... why? Why would you make a smart game dumber to make it appealing? What if the smartness of the game was the thing that was appealing in the first place? You should improve on what the game has been. Maybe the fact that you think that the majority of gamers are braindead idiots, makes you a braindead idiot. Have you ever considered that by bringing a smarter, old-style game to the modern market that is oversaturated with retarded filth, would actually make it stand out and sell more? Are you brainwashed or something? Of course you are. At least that would explain the total lack of basis for believing that bigger audiences equal idiots. Someone has inserted this delusion into the head of every game developer and that's why we have games like Thief: Deadly Shadows, Splinter Cell: Conviction and Silent Hill: Homecoming and it never stops.

[shobhit777777]

@Platinumoxicity

Originally Posted by Platinumoxicity

There's this urban legend, or mass delusion, that has no origin, that is commonly accepted as truth. And that lie is that an audience that is 3 times bigger has a hundred times more retards. So when a game developer takes an old niche franchise and tries to make it appeal to a bigger audience, they somehow insist on making it dumber. But... why? Why would you make a smart game dumber to make it appealing? What if the smartness of the game was the thing that was appealing in the first place? You should improve on what the game has been. Maybe the fact that you think that the majority of gamers are braindead idiots, makes you a braindead idiot. Have you ever considered that by bringing a smarter, old-style game to the modern market that is oversaturated with retarded filth, would actually make it stand out and sell more? Are you brainwashed or something? Of course you are. At least that would explain the total lack of basis for believing that bigger audiences equal idiots. Someone has inserted this delusion into the head of every game developer and that's why we have games like Thief: Deadly Shadows, Splinter Cell: Conviction and Silent Hill: Homecoming and it never stops.

Hi
Could you elaborate the 'Dumbing down' in Hitman:Absolution and Splinter Cell Conviction?

[Sam_kain]

Platinumoxicity: SCC doesn't fit at all, if you are patient then you can find that every SC games is easy, SCCT for example, you just need to wait, and it's all good, you can stick to cover right next to a guard, and I guarantee he won't spot you, at least in SCC is you do that the guard would actually feel you are there and shot you, also try running and gunning in SCC on realistic, you will die, same as every other SC, the improvements of SCC were top notch, even though removing the old features was kinda bad, but the new experience, the fast paced stealth was 2nd to non, it was something new, undone before by any other game, that's why SCC shines

[shobhit777777]

Originally Posted by Sam_kain

Platinumoxicity: SCC doesn't fit at all, if you are patient then you can find that every SC games is easy, SCCT for example, you just need to wait, and it's all good, you can stick to cover right next to a guard, and I guarantee he won't spot you, at least in SCC is you do that the guard would actually feel you are there and shot you, also try running and gunning in SCC on realistic, you will die, same as every other SC, the improvements of SCC were top notch, even though removing the old features was kinda bad, but the new experience, the fast paced stealth was 2nd to non, it was something new, undone before by any other game, that's why SCC shines

True.

Playing SCC in Deniable-Ops (Offline mode similar to terrorist hunt in R6:Vegas, where the objective is to eliminate 10-12 enemies per level without raising alarms) the depth and complexity of the gameplay comes to fore.

It becomes really challenging, when you have to sit back and deal with 12 armed men in a large environment with multiple approaches. Although SCC focuses on a fast paced attack style, you can easily morph it into your own stealth game. It is FAR more challenging than it's predeccesors due to large amounts of AI and their sharper reaction times plus the massive levels and multiple ways to move/interact with the environment.
It is an amazing and extremely satisfying experience to hang in a dark corner, observe the 6 guys below you, prioritize targets, make a kill order and then execute with precision. It can offer you a lot of opportunities to plan and execute stealthy attacks...the main focus of the game.

IMO Absolution should definitely pick up on Conviction's new mechanics to beef up the more traditional sneaking aspects.



As for emulating Conviction...well it pioneered the Aggro-Stealth concept, which Hitman certainly can make use of. It has one of the best cover systems, character handling, environmental interactivity and CQC system...so yeah. Emulating those aspects is certainly a VERY good idea when it comes to increasing 47's lethality and beefing up Hitman gameplay. Hitman, as a concept, a character and a game is far too unique and far too good to be called a clone. It needs to assimilate the better mechanics from other games while retaining and improving the core concept of open ended assassination missions with disguise based stealth.
Not adopting mechanics that work and add depth to the gameplay JUST for the sake of being original and unique is downright counter-productive. If that were the case we'd still be playing Doom '95.

@Acerbusx

..and, really, I don't understand why. Conviction didn't sell as well as the previous Splinter Cell games. It was a critical, artistic, and financial failure. Why emulate it in any regard?

Conviction was neither a critical or commercial failure and from an artistic POV it was brilliant (that is debatable as it is a personal opinion) It sold over 2 million games and garnered a LOT of critical praise. You'll also notice that in the generally negative reviews (from fans and critics alike) the game was called out for not being more like the predecessors....which quite a redundant point as the whole idea was to make a redesigned stealth-action game. The game was crushed under the weight of expectations of fans who expected it to be Chaos Theory 2.0...which although understandable, was unfair as the fans rejected it (not giving the newer gameplay a chance) and via online media have really butchered its image.

[BigBoss]

Originally Posted by xAcerbusx

...and, really, I don't understand why. Conviction didn't sell as well as the previous Splinter Cell games. It was a critical, artistic, and financial failure. Why emulate it in any regard?

Dude, you are one of the sanest people here. I almost always agree with you but this time, you are flat out making up. As much as I didn't like conviction, it was neither a critical failure
http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/...ion/index.html
or a commercial failure
http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/...ion/index.html
Just because it didn't do as well as previous games, most companies would kill for 2 million in sales and an aggregate critical score of 86%. Those numbers hardly make it a failure.

Discussing whether or not something is an artistic failure, is a matter of opinion so there's no point in going into that.

[Sam_kain]

yup shobhit777777, not to mention it becomes even more challenging when you play without gadgets, only H2H kills, I think everyone can make his own challenge in D-Ops, not to mention that the guards lay out in every level change whenever you restart the level

I think Hitman absolution disguise mechanics are solid as ever, and now they are adding these little things like cover, CQC, environmental objects .....etc, all these are good things that enhance the experience, making it almost perfect

Now regarding the CQC, I really liked what SCC with the whole Krava Maga, and I think Hitman introducing such a feature as CQC is not bad, it is a trait that every stealth game should have, just like running in FPS

[nirvana1]

is streets & free city places gone in absolution?

its always in small places like stealth action games.

[xAcerbusx]

Originally Posted by BigBoss

Dude, you are one of the sanest people here. I almost always agree with you but this time, you are flat out making up. As much as I didn't like conviction, it was neither a critical failure
http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/...ion/index.html
or a commercial failure
http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/...ion/index.html
Just because it didn't do as well as previous games, most companies would kill for 2 million in sales and an aggregate critical score of 86%. Those numbers hardly make it a failure.

Discussing whether or not something is an artistic failure, is a matter of opinion so there's no point in going into that.

First off... you have to factor in that Splinter Cell: Conviction had to be made twice. In early 2007, they were past Alpha, and ready to start work on the final build... then some higher-up from Ubisoft played it and said 'scrap it and start over', which is why we didn't get the final version of Splinter Cell: Conviction until 3 years later.

So, factor in that it cost 5 years worth of development cash to make. TWICE. And then factor in the fact that it fell short of Double Agent and Chaos Theory's sales numbers... yes. It was a financial failure, and a massive one. 2 million in today's market? Dragon Age 2 sold just under that across all platforms, and was still referred to - by people WITHIN Electronic Arts - as a financial failure. And they didn't have to make it twice over the course of 5 years!

[shobhit777777]

Originally Posted by xAcerbusx

First off... you have to factor in that Splinter Cell: Conviction had to be made twice. In early 2007, they were past Alpha, and ready to start work on the final build... then some higher-up from Ubisoft played it and said 'scrap it and start over', which is why we didn't get the final version of Splinter Cell: Conviction until 3 years later.

So, factor in that it cost 5 years worth of development cash to make. TWICE. And then factor in the fact that it fell short of Double Agent and Chaos Theory's sales numbers... yes. It was a financial failure, and a massive one. 2 million in today's market? Dragon Age 2 sold just under that across all platforms, and was still referred to - by people WITHIN Electronic Arts - as a financial failure. And they didn't have to make it twice over the course of 5 years!

Maxime Beland (the Creative Director and the guy behind the whole Aggro-Stealth direction) joined early 2009 and worked on the previous iteration of the game for over 2 months...it was then they decided to change direction and work at the new (SCC 2010) game.

That involves conceptualising (not an easy thing when trying to do something different in the stealth genre) prototyping and then developing.

Now factor in the mechanics they had to work on:

1. A vastly improved AI which is smart enough to give enjoyable gun fights AND be a believable opponent when in stealth loop..and a fluid shift between the modes...this is critical for Aggro-Stealth games...something which Conviction has pioneered and done very well.

2. Revamping the visuals and adding more interactivity with the environment

3. Mark and Execute...as easy as it may sound it was prolly a * to work on. Prioritizing AI, getting the animations right, getting the camera right...it must have been brutal for the programmers

4. Core gameplay. Given SCCs flexibility and the combat/stealth mechanics designing entire levels around it would've have been a major challenge...and take into account the various actions a player might take and you will have an understanding of how hard it must have been to make and test levels to get the gameplay right

5. PEC and D-ops + Full Coop mode. The MP modes are full fledged games in their own right. The Coop story is almost as long as the SP one. Designing the game around 2 player instead of one...another headache.


So yeah...SCC is a mighty big achievement for what must have been (in actuality) 8-10 months of development.

[nirvana1]

in absolution trailers (run for your life, She Must Be Special) we can see the most of game play Built in dark places for Ex: look at she must be special trailer you can see the light of window and its day ,but rooms are all black and dark and agent 47 always hiding, usually you are in the back of enemies and they don't see you ,even walking behind enemies whit cloths is for a few seconds and you must hurry, if everyone can go their ways,why trailers didn't show us old schools ways? if its for everyone we need a proof

[Demoni91]

Nothing wrong with taking a little inspiration.

[sgg847]

Originally Posted by nirvana1

in absolution trailers (run for your life, She Must Be Special) we can see the most of game play Built in dark places for Ex: look at she must be special trailer you can see the light of window and its day ,but rooms are all black and dark and agent 47 always hiding, usually you are in the back of enemies and they don't see you ,even walking behind enemies whit cloths is for a few seconds and you must hurry, if everyone can go their ways,why trailers didn't show us old schools ways? if its for everyone we need a proof

You are amazing with your logic. You begin with something dark but ... I see light in the end of a tunnel... but again the same crap.

Reaction of NPC on steps behind is definitely similar in both demos. I may be wrong but it is result of dividing people on casual and hardcore. (don't want to search interview about different AI behavior). I see you belong to the hardcore "caste". I think that chosen people should not worry about it because today blood money turn to "pure" money.

If it is then more ugly sides of such dividing will be revealed soon.

[elsnichkum]

I sometimes doubt that people who complain Hitman Absolution looks and plays like Splinter Cell Conviction, has even played SC:C. Sure, SC:C downgraded in terms of its roots (splinter cell chaos theory was THE BOMB), but as its own game, it was a DAMN FINE game. I mean, at least Hitman Absolution keeps most of its main game play elements while adding new material instead of ditching everything and doing a totally different game. My point being...be grateful, be humble, wait until the game come out.

[ImJustLikeYou47]

Originally Posted by BeardedHoplite

I think all you guys are all a little too butthurt. Change isn't bad, do you think the formula changed a bit between Silent Assassin and Blood Money?
Do I think the game looks a little too Bourne-y? Yes. Do I think it's going to kill the Hitman franchise? Absolutely not.

Bad exmaple, since Blood Money was an actual IMPROVEMENT.

Silent Assassin had unique ways to kill people, like getting special items and triggering secret events.

Blood Money, had the same thing, but less obvious. You didn't trigger events on a line, it was more fluid than that.

The best example, and perhaps the best level in Blood Money was Suburbia. This level had it all.

Then, ON TOP of this, the wedding level.

The white house level.

The casino even.

Seriously Blood Money was one sweet game, even by itself, without any other Hitman games.

[ImJustLikeYou47]

Originally Posted by Jack Bauer 24

Because the games industry has grown exponentially and dev costs have become far greater thus the need to reach a bigger audience has grown. All those title you mentioned were fairly niche titles, especially considering todays industry. Like it or not, games are created for the masses, not just a select few. When you create something for the masses, you have to create for the lowest common denominator.

Really? Because that's how you ruin a title. And haven't you heard how the pricetag of 60$ may be a thing of the past soon?

Because small games coming out for 10-15$ are trumping them in sales.

So if a development team can crank out a game and sell it at 14$ and outsale these "todays industry standards" you call games. What's the problem?

The problem is their products are genuinely fun, for what they are. They don't take something and dumb it down. Their product is intended to be dumbed down.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there really is that many new gen gamers who are entering the gaming scene and make up the bulk of their sales. But if all they are trying to do is attract new gamers, why make it suck? Why not just re-release a Blood Money or Silent Assassin type game with different levels and shiny new graphics? Is it not less work just to create an expansion on something you've already made?

[nirvana1]

Originally Posted by ImJustLikeYou47

Really? Because that's how you ruin a title. And haven't you heard how the pricetag of 60$ may be a thing of the past soon?

Because small games coming out for 10-15$ are trumping them in sales.

So if a development team can crank out a game and sell it at 14$ and outsale these "todays industry standards" you call games. What's the problem?

The problem is their products are genuinely fun, for what they are. They don't take something and dumb it down. Their product is intended to be dumbed down.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there really is that many new gen gamers who are entering the gaming scene and make up the bulk of their sales. But if all they are trying to do is attract new gamers, why make it suck? Why not just re-release a Blood Money or Silent Assassin type game with different levels and shiny new graphics? Is it not less work just to create an expansion on something you've already made?

i agree