Bad day for Ubi Soft

If you read my post again: I did not say you said the games were crap. If i read your original post correctly, I thought you were talking about innovation, I was merely disagreeing with it and putting my opinion across that I believe there was enough innovation between each title not to be put with Splinter Cell / Need for Speed / Command and Conquer.

2 introduced iMuse which then went on to be used in many Lucasarts games after that, and is a system better than a lot of games have today. 2 didn't have Insult sword fighting from 1, or rhyming which came in 3. There really isn't anything similar to it in 2. If i remember correctly, 2 didn't go back to Monkey Island. Since you had higer res for 3 and 3d for 4, maybe that 2 had a different art style from 1 is also big enough of a change (yes, still 320x200, but oil painted backgrounds rather than Dpaint ones)

3 and 4 both changing the gui (both times new to the series, not adventure games as a whole)

Yes 4 did have insult arm wrestling at the start (it brought back a lot from 1, Melee Island, Carla and Otis..) but then also brought in Monkey Kombat which was new to the series.

Would I say they're really innovative? No.

Would I say each one is innovative enough to be separated from games such as Splinter Cell etc? Yep.

But its still just a sequel, it still just another monkey island. Games like spore are fresh and exiting to many people because they have no predecessor, spiritual or otherwise. However, different and new doesnt always translate to good or fun. Atleast If I were to pick up prince of persia 4 I would know I would enjoy it.

Ah yes Prince of Persia, what happened to you?

[Blocked Image: http://custardsclutter.com/1041759499-00.jpg]

I haven't really enjoyed the new POP too much, the first one was okay but the others didn't really appeal to me, certainly not the darker image they keep forcing upon us.

Quote from ctswin

Ah yes Prince of Persia, what happened to you?

He actually looks persian now?

edit: Its funny how we've gone very off topic yet every post (except cybbes :roll:) still relates back to Ubi

Surely he's from a time when barbaric takeovers were all the rage? (yes you could argue it's still happening but ssshh)

Kind of like Jesus (oh boy, this could go wrong ¬¬), often depicted as white with a longer face, when reality is if he lived, he wouldn't have looked like that. I dunno, just seems wrong changing the prince now

Lol, I just realized. He looks incredibly like Luke Skywalker!

Quote from Polaris

He actually looks persian now?

edit: Its funny how we've gone very off topic yet every post (except cybbes :roll:) still relates back to Ubi

WHAT, YOU WANT ME TO TOUCH YOU!?

Quote

this splinter cell is like all those command and conquer, monkey island, need for speed sequel stuff. you get better graphics, more detailed models and textures, but the game does not change.

It varies from person to person, but for me, the reason I play a game is for the storyline. I play a game to see and experience what is happening to the characters and the game universe (hence why I don't play many multiplayer games that arent MMOs). If I enjoy playing a game, its because of what happened in the game, and what the story of a game accomplished (the same reasons anyone would watch a movie). If I enjoy the setting, the universe, and the characters enough, then they could make 55 sequals to the game, and as long as the story related to the other 54 games and I was still able to get something out of it, then there will be at least 55 games on my shelf.

Splinter Cell has yet to let me down. If the gameplay doesnt change, just graphics, but the story/gameplay is still as engrossing as its predecessors, I say keep them coming.

anyone care to tell me how this is so "REALLY bad" for ubisoft?

Quote from Section_Ei8ht

It varies from person to person, but for me, the reason I play a game is for the storyline. I play a game to see and experience what is happening to the characters and the game universe (hence why I don't play many multiplayer games that arent MMOs). If I enjoy playing a game, its because of what happened in the game, and what the story of a game accomplished (the same reasons anyone would watch a movie). If I enjoy the setting, the universe, and the characters enough, then they could make 55 sequals to the game, and as long as the story related to the other 54 games and I was still able to get something out of it, then there will be at least 55 games on my shelf.

Splinter Cell has yet to let me down. If the gameplay doesnt change, just graphics, but the story/gameplay is still as engrossing as its predecessors, I say keep them coming.

I have to agree 110% with you on that. I haven't played more than the two first splinter cells, though. But I liked them.

I'm more of a KOTOR series guy though ;o As well as a bunch of other storydriven RPGs(That aren't all hack n' slash. I'm so sick of those).

I do, however, enjoy FPS's with a storyline as well as third person games... Only games I genuinely don't like in any form, are racing games ;o

Quote from hessi

actually i dont like sequels. it doesnt bring that much innovation to a game. i prefer games like loco roco that bring up some new gameplay features.

okay i play dod:s which is a sequel to dod, but that's an exception.

this splinter cell is like all those command and conquer ...

*sniff* I like command and conquer. I mean it got changed with Generals because that wasnt like Red Alert or C&C. And idk how much innovation is going into C&C 3 but if it adds a bit to it without straying away too much from the original formula that I like so much about it... then I'll be fine. I think its the same for a lot of games like Splinter Cell, etc.