Splinter Cell: Blacklist

[miicah]

Sam Fisher magically got younger somehow? I can understand having to change VA's but seriously, he LOOKS about 20 years younger.



Killed 3 people in the entire trailer and knocked out two more. Was just as exciting.

[NanoDuke]

I like the James Bond theory.

"Sam Fisher" has now become a James Bond type name that has no bearing on the actual individual.



ALTHOUGH!

Has anyone else seen the new Tomb Raider E3 trailers? Very similar thing happening. Lara Croft is now a new person visually, and I believe has a new accent, too. And a differently proportioned *ahem* "personality" if you know what I mean.

Also the gameplay has gone balls up, too. Very little puzzle elements, and a lot of quick-time-esque events.

//well, from what I've deciphered from the short video I watched the other night.//

[lithos]

Any similarities to any characters, living or dead, are purely coincidental, and for marketing purposes only...

[Sharpe]

Originally Posted by NanoDuke

I like the James Bond theory.

"Sam Fisher" has now become a James Bond type name that has no bearing on the actual individual.

you mean the actor? The character of james bond is *always* the same guy - it isn't a code word...

EDIT: Also really digging how sam is all pew pew kills da baddies pew pew commando stylez... just like the awsum call of dutiez lulz!

EDIT2: I can't believe chilled is arguing about how splinter cell wasn't necessarily a stealth game...erm...yes it was. It was NEVER about run and gun until conviction... the game just didn't accomodate a COD style of play.

[NanoDuke]

Hmmmm... but isn't that kinda the same thing?

Okay then the 007 films break chronology by having a James Bond who never ages.
Why can't they do the same here with Sam Fisher? Just close out all the story line that has linked the previous games, and just start fresh with a "new" Sam Fisher.

[Sharpe]

Originally Posted by NanoDuke

Hmmmm... but isn't that kinda the same thing?

Okay then the 007 films break chronology by having a James Bond who never ages.
Why can't they do the same here with Sam Fisher? Just close out all the story line that has linked the previous games, and just start fresh with a "new" Sam Fisher.

I agree - but they're not starting fresh. They're continuing the story and making sam young.

Also sam was always an 'older' guy - it's something fundamental to the character.

[Philll]

The first game was set in 2004

He was born in 1957

He was 47 in the first game

He'd now be 55'ish

[lithos]

Originally Posted by Sharpe

Also sam was always an 'older' guy - it's something fundamental to the character.

This was one of those nice exposition touches. It just makes more sense they'd get a season covert-ops field agent rather than someone who's twenty-one. It also avoids and denounces the tired old cliché of your character being fresh out of the academy, top-of-his-class, young prodigy.

The original Fisher worked as a "diplomatic aide" (polite way of saying "spy") in various foreign embassies between leaving the SEALs and joining Third Echelon. Would you rather hire the guy with experience or the guy who's been in the business for all of about five minutes?

We probably wouldn't miss it if it wasn't done, but making Sam 47 at time of Splinter Cell adds just that much more believability and credibility.

Then again, the first three games were well-rooted in the realism of story. The plots were, of course, out there, one-in-a-thousand sorts of scenarios, but definitely plausible. I'm playing the first one, and it starts out with simply finding out what happened to two spies who dropped out of contact. That's it. There's no massive, melodramatic, "OH MY GOD, THEY WANT TO WIPE OUT AMUUURIKA!" set piece.

[Philll]

Remember when a game would come out and we'd just hear about it.

Now with eveeeery fuuuucking gaaaaame they molest we get this justification that it isn't just a game for retards, when it clearly is, and clearly was with Conviction when they said the very same thing. If it isn't a justification (with video playing in the background going against everything they're talking about) it's the mention of a hardcore/purist/"Title of old game" mode which have all been added with minimum effort.

Because it wouldn't make sense to show these other ways you can play it... ohhh no

[lithos]

"Small number of moments where the player is 'required' to take a certain approach..."

The thirty seconds of "gameplay" (ie, cut scene) footage at contradicts both implications in that statement. Amazing.

[miicah]

Originally Posted by lithos

"Small number of moments where the player is 'required' to take a certain approach..."

The thirty seconds of "gameplay" (ie, cut scene) footage at contradicts both implications in that statement. Amazing.

How are you supposed to get past 8 armed guards when it seems the only way is to scale the wall being blocked by them? Yeah there is an illusion of choice, just like a lot of other AAA single player games lately...

[Kitler]

Originally Posted by Philll

movie

Remember when a game would come out and we'd just hear about it.

Now with eveeeery fuuuucking gaaaaame they molest we get this justification that it isn't just a game for retards, when it clearly is, and clearly was with Conviction when they said the very same thing. If it isn't a justification (with video playing in the background going against everything they're talking about) it's the mention of a hardcore/purist/"Title of old game" mode which have all been added with minimum effort.

Because it wouldn't make sense to show these other ways you can play it... ohhh no

I call bullocks on what the guy getting interviewed says.

[gregpolk]

Originally Posted by NanoDuke

Hmmmm... but isn't that kinda the same thing?

Okay then the 007 films break chronology by having a James Bond who never ages.
Why can't they do the same here with Sam Fisher? Just close out all the story line that has linked the previous games, and just start fresh with a "new" Sam Fisher.

James bond films are rarely a continuation of the story of the previous one. Sometimes when the same actor is used they are, but then we get a 'reboot' of the series when a new guy comes along. There are some exceptions to this in the series but for the most part it's true. This game is a sequel to the previous titles. It's a direct continuation after the events of all previous games except they've retconned his age so he's not in his 50s so they can make it moar actionz. No one likes a retcon.

I don't mind them doing a 'James Bond' thing with game characters. I'm a zelda fanboy, I can hardly be against them reusing Link with barely any chronological sense to it all. But it's confusing if it's not established as a common factor of your franchise, and if you're going to reboot the franchise then do a reboot, not a hybrid sequel.

The problem here is there's no reason for it. Why can't you just use a new character? Then we could still have our fantastic Sam Fischer voice growling orders at you while making a lot more sense that the director of a spy agency isn't also a field agent. Perfect time to introduce a new character to the franchise. Instead they went for a nonsensical plot with a confused continuation in order to ditch our beloved voice actor for the sake or moar action.

[MR CHILLED]

Get your SC goggles right here!

$5.99 shipped

http://www.meritline.com/outdoor-eye...q_v=793a1fef9e

[Sharpe]

Originally Posted by gregpolk

James bond films are rarely a continuation of the story of the previous one. Sometimes when the same actor is used they are, but then we get a 'reboot' of the series when a new guy comes along. There are some exceptions to this in the series but for the most part it's true. This game is a sequel to the previous titles. It's a direct continuation after the events of all previous games except they've retconned his age so he's not in his 50s so they can make it moar actionz. No one likes a retcon.

I don't mind them doing a 'James Bond' thing with game characters. I'm a zelda fanboy, I can hardly be against them reusing Link with barely any chronological sense to it all. But it's confusing if it's not established as a common factor of your franchise, and if you're going to reboot the franchise then do a reboot, not a hybrid sequel.

The problem here is there's no reason for it. Why can't you just use a new character? Then we could still have our fantastic Sam Fischer voice growling orders at you while making a lot more sense that the director of a spy agency isn't also a field agent. Perfect time to introduce a new character to the franchise. Instead they went for a nonsensical plot with a confused continuation in order to ditch our beloved voice actor for the sake or moar action.

It's only really a reboot in bond with Craig, or maybe arguably brosnan as well. Connery/Lazenby/Moore are definetely meant to be the 'same guy' (i.e. continuity with his wife getting killed, etc), and possibly Dalton's bond as well. Though the bullshit with Blofeld is another matter...