Gazaraz wrote: Another worrying thing as well is what if Ubisoft decides take down servers for a particular game?
I'm sure it isn't server related, it's probably that it goes to one big authentication server located in Ubisoft Headquarters, which acts kind of like a "VAC" tool, (UAC, Ubisoft Authentication Client?

) it will probably only make sure that there's a legitimate game in x persons xbox. It also makes it so that they can trace who pirated the game to the xbox account, resulting in some sort of punishment. In other words, it will probably be 1 server that ubisoft uses to authenticate every game, not just this one specific game.
They probably did something along these lines because of heavy piracy (SF4, for example, had the game pirated 2 weeks before) and the only people to blame for these sort of resolutions are the people who manipulated the lack of authentication in the first place.
This could have been done in a more tactful way, rather than just making it so you can't play at all if you don't have internet connection, but all in all it isn't too horrible.
ad_hominem wrote:
To be fair that was the first mediocre game in a series of stellar titles. From the looks of things it seems to be getting the series back on track.
I love some of the art direction on conviction, i.e. the text visuals and how they blended those into the environments. It looks like they may need to touch up the effect in some circumstances, but the game looks pretty good. Also, it seems they've got rid of some of the extensive menus from the original game, something I look forward to seeing how they pull that off. I think I'll rent that game, depending on whether or not I have the time between studies.

I think splinter cell went through a Megaman crisis, in which there were too many sequels too frequently. The games were good, but it was impossible to keep up with the latest edition and the changes were too minuscule. The games never really got worse, but there were too many games that just kept having less and less additions.