Splinter Cell: Conviction

Well I decided to take a look at the website "which has been around since may" and noticed that they have some in-game screen shots, low resolution, but they give you somewhat of an idea what this monster of a DX10 game is going to look like, that are your thoughts ?

http://splintercell.us.ubi.com/conviction/

Just hit the Screen shots "also under videos there is something amazing" link at the top of the page.

i just watched the video and **** ****, an insane amount of detail "which Ubi is known for the the Splinter Cell games". This is the reason I will buy a DX10 Video card.

UBI's reputation is kinda crappy lately. They did great the series until Double Agent and dropped the ball on that.

I'll believe it when I see it.

if you hit the enlarge button it downloads a 1280px size version of the screen shot.

thanks, i missed that, very nice.

I'm sick of these dual platform releases. They're always compromised as a result.

Yup it looks cool. Hope they release a demo prior to the release of it. It seems to be different than the other SC's in a sense since well your out in the open and doesn't seem as stealthy.

SteveLord said:

UBI's reputation is kinda crappy lately. They did great the series until Double Agent and dropped the ball on that.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Click to expand...

I kinda like Double Agent... but then again I didn't play any previous SC's so I can't really say ...

Is there a reason why it's worse? (So far it's very entertaining gameplay/graphics wise...)

Oh and Conviction looks really cool

LogRus said:

I kinda like Double Agent... but then again I didn't play any previous SC's so I can't really say ...

Is there a reason why it's worse? (So far it's very entertaining gameplay/graphics wise...)

Oh and Conviction looks really cool

Click to expand...

-Shader Model 3 card required. This costs the community players just like it did with R6V.

-Buggy as hell

-Butchered the cooperative mode

-Ubi dropped support for it didn't they? They like to do this.

just because its only SM3.0/4.0 doesn't make it worse...its the new unreal engine, i don't know if its capable of sm2.0, but i see no reason why they should use it in the first place, that hardware is at least 2years old now. don't like it upgrade.

i dont recall DA being buggy, did you play through the whole game ? if so why ? you dont even seem to like these SC games.

PhysX said:

just because its only SM3.0/4.0 doesn't make it worse...its the new unreal engine, i don't know if its capable of sm2.0, but i see no reason why they should use it in the first place, that hardware is at least 2years old now. don't like it upgrade.

i dont recall DA being buggy, did you play through the whole game ? if so why ? you dont even seem to like these SC games.

Click to expand...

It makes it worse in a sense that you lose players. And when you lose players, you lose profit. Especially when you have a buggy game anyway. No one is going to tell their friends its worth buying a newer video card to play a game that may or may not play crappy on their PC. There's lots of players out there still on their x800 video cards that can play other games that LOOK BETTER and RUN BETTER, but don't enforce such a standard.

Ubi loses players. And the players lose players. Get it? The same thing happened with HALO2...and that failed too.

Its pure laziness on their part.

And I did play the series through Chaos Theory. But I researched before purchasing DA...and wasn't impressed when I did play it.

It seemed fun when I had it installed. I didn't play co-op or anything I just had a few training missions I did. I didn't get into the actual game itself since I was just barrowing it from a friend and never really got a chance to sit down and play it.

As for SM3.0... Just because the game requires it doesn't put it at a downside. Its a step forward. I'm all for newer tech and newer things in games. If they have backwards capibility sure its nice but can add to development time.

deathman20 said:

As for SM3.0... Just because the game requires it doesn't put it at a downside. Its a step forward. I'm all for newer tech and newer things in games. If they have backwards capibility sure its nice but can add to development time.

Click to expand...

Like I said...its their funeral..which they've had 2 of them already with this game and R6V. Its not a matter of being for/against newer technology.

And they have a habit for cutting development time...especially when quality testing is concerned. Just port it from the consoles and hope for the best right?

SteveLord said:

Like I said...its their funeral..which they've had 2 of them already with this game and R6V. Its not a matter of being for/against newer technology.

And they have a habit for cutting development time...especially when quality testing is concerned. Just port it from the consoles and hope for the best right?

Click to expand...

GRAW 2 requires SM3.0 if not mistaken as well.

Really though its not there funeral, there moving forward. Why use somethings that is older when the newer one can be used more to there liking? Its like why most games today don't have DX8 capibility, or require newer hardware to run. Its a step forward, and its the customers fault for not upgrading to newer tech. Weather they can or not is well really there choice but if the company wants to be on the leading edge of things they have to know when to cut ties with older tech.

I've played every SC game since the demo for the first one. They've all been buggy, UBI doesn't do the best job with stability or support, but the game content and graphics have always been worth the hassle for me.
A personal bug in SCDA, I had to use a ctrl to operate some of the game puzzles, keyboard wouldn't work. Read: safes, making mines, etc.

I played SC 1 through 3 on my PS2 and loved them. I bought SCDA for PC a couple months ago. Had to be the biggest piece of garbage I ever loaded onto my rig. This game gets two thumbs down from me. I didn't make it past the third mission due to lack of patience with the constant errors, crashes & bugs that this game gave me.

I checked tons of forums, the Ubi site etc... for help and there are a lot of people in the same boat and not much help or patches. Yes UBI totally dropped support for it and it is not even a year old. That is why I am going to be VERY skeptical of ANY Ubi game in the future. Assasin's Creed, SCC, FarCry 2... all look really promising but I am not blowing any cash on these until I know they are tried, tested and true performers. Not bug infested junk. That's my $0.02 :\

Thund3rball said:

I played SC 1 through 3 on my PS2 and loved them. I bought SCDA for PC a couple months ago. Had to be the biggest piece of garbage I ever loaded onto my rig. This game gets two thumbs down from me. I didn't make it past the third mission due to lack of patience with the constant errors, crashes & bugs that this game gave me.

I checked tons of forums, the Ubi site etc... for help and there are a lot of people in the same boat and not much help or patches. Yes UBI totally dropped support for it and it is not even a year old. That is why I am going to be VERY skeptical of ANY Ubi game in the future. Assasin's Creed, SCC, FarCry 2... all look really promising but I am not blowing any cash on these until I know they are tried, tested and true performers. Not bug infested junk. That's my $0.02 :\

Click to expand...

rgr that, Im also tired of Ubi games being dropped instead of fixed. And damn do I want Assassins Creed day 1, but Im going to have to restrain myself for at least a week.

deathman20 said:

GRAW 2 requires SM3.0 if not mistaken as well.

Really though its not there funeral, there moving forward. Why use somethings that is older when the newer one can be used more to there liking? Its like why most games today don't have DX8 capibility, or require newer hardware to run. Its a step forward, and its the customers fault for not upgrading to newer tech. Weather they can or not is well really there choice but if the company wants to be on the leading edge of things they have to know when to cut ties with older tech.

Click to expand...

You're comparing DirectX 8...which was released in 2000...to a graphics feature that first premiered in nvidia's cards in 2004 and then by ATI in 2005?

Nice try.

And we're talking about 2 games that were released last year...when far less people had SM3 video cards. If they were released today, it would not be as much of an issue...but still an issue.

Once again. Halo 2. Forcing people to "upgrade" their OS will not make them buy them do it to buy the game. Especially when that particular OS has issues as it is.

They're the ones losing out on buyers. Higher requirements = less potential computers it will run on. And not everyone spends money to play a single game.

It's pretty simple.

They've all been buggy, UBI doesn't do the best job with stability or support, but the game content and graphics have always been worth the hassle for me.

Click to expand...

Thats the problem. People get a hardon about screenshots, trailers and hype from the net. Many fall into preordering this crap or rushing to the stores to get a copy....come home to play and face huge disappointment.

Ubi's recent track record with PC games cannot be debated. They have focused far less attention to PC games and have instead attempted to perfect the console versions and then do a half-assed port to the PC.

Not only are you talking about 2 games released last year, but 2 games that by the time a good majority of people had SM3 cards these games were already dropped by the company.

Twigglish said:

rgr that, Im also tired of Ubi games being dropped instead of fixed. And damn do I want Assassins Creed day 1, but Im going to have to restrain myself for at least a week.

Click to expand...

Assassin's Creed will probably rock on console, just like the SC series. But I don't have a PS3, nor do I intend on buying one anytime soon, so I am just going to have to restrain myself as well with only Crysis, HL2 EP2, QW:ET, GOW, MOHA, FEAR PM, UT3... oh how will I cope? LOL

SteveLord said:

You're comparing DirectX 8...which was released in 2000...to a graphics feature that first premiered in nvidia's cards in 2004 and then by ATI in 2005?

Nice try.

And we're talking about 2 games that were released last year...when far less people had SM3 video cards. If they were released today, it would not be as much of an issue...but still an issue.

Click to expand...

Ok so the cards where release 2+ years prior to the game coming out. GPU's do have a life expectancy by the manufactures. Sure some push them longer than others but 2 years is pushing it for the usefulness of the card im most cases.

Its the same case when games started coming out only DX9 or DX9a or DX9b or DX9c. The same things going on now that your discussing. At some point the people making the game have to decide how long do they keep code in for older cards. Its not that they are trying to cut off customers, but its a logical step forward.

Its a simple fact, if you want to play games on a PC, you will have to live with the fact that you'll have to upgrade your GPU probably every 2 years if its a smaller sized monitor. If you have a High Res monitor well every year really to keep up with the pace of gaming. As I said sure you can run the GPU for longer than 2years but you'll defiantly be sacrificing something in the game that the developer thinks is a requirement.


Ive persoinally had little issues with UBI and there way of making games. Really only ones I've played of theres is the early Rainbow and more recently the Ghost Recon series. There good, but yes they do have there quirks in them and I can live with it because I enjoy the game.