Splinter Cell Trilogy sneaking onto PS3, in HD (of course)

@lenandude I say that because I was thinking it would come out on disc for like $30. But it will prolly be $40... So... Yeah...

@WonderWeazel - I was going to comment about Splinter Cell was a really amazing looking game, and that I didn't know if I needed it in HD, but then I read your post and remembered that this might mean the multiplayer servers get turned back on.

Now I am excited.

@BananaBoat - About how*

@Raffi256
Pandora Tomorrow is my favorite! =D

@wocyob

http://www.gailborden.info/m/images/stories/AudioVisual/blu-ray-logo.jpg

@Ezio Auditore da Firenze B-e-a-utiful sight, isn't it. :D

@Ezio Auditore da Firenze makes sense in a way but we didnt get a bluray release of Prince of Persia here in the states... just went on psn ... something that could have been done on the 360

@Billlop Totally agree.
It may not be as stealth as it used to be, but it certainly is much more metal.

@Shinchi

So they could offer cheaper consoles to a wider market?

@Shinchi In fairness most of these games look like garbage on hdtvs and people want these remakes.

@Shinchi
They took it away to cut costs on the console.

The reason why they haven't offered it back either in the form of hardware or software form, well... yeah...

@NukaCola

I imagine if they re-release them it will be the best version available. Like in Chaos Theory on PS2 there were certain lights you couldn't shoot out, but I'm pretty sure it was just a problem with the PS2 and the dynamic lighting. Don't see why you wouldn't be able to on this one. Either way it'll be awesome, especially if you can play Spies vs Mercs on PSN.

@NukaCola If its HD PS2 versions rather than HD Xbox Original Versions, then they lost my money.

Probably not with the xbla file size limit...

@Axcalibur
afaik only the first GC/GBA splinter cell game did that. Agreed, it would be cool to see it reimplemented.

@Diecastcook
You can always import

@Punkrawk Bbob
Eh, unlike some gamers, I wholeheartedly support the practice of publishers regularly re-releasing games for new generations. Good games shouldn't be doomed to obscurity once their hardware becomes obsolete, and gamers deserve the chance to play them even if they weren't playing games, didn't own the right console, or otherwise missed them when they came out. Since only one current-gen console still has proper backwards compatibility, I think re-releasing games is a good thing. Besides, I'm sure quite a few people would beg to differ with you regarding Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory being "standard fare". (And I would personally beg to differ regarding God of War being exceptional.)

@gatotsu911

"Besides, I'm sure quite a few people would beg to differ with you regarding Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory being "standard fare". (And I would personally beg to differ regarding God of War being exceptional.)"

GASP! You mean that not everyone enjoys the same games as me? I always thought that my opinion was absolute?!? No shit, I realize different people enjoy different games. I also realize that sometimes games we enjoy we can recognize aren't amazing, or that games that we know are just aren't our thing. Like I can not by any means find enjoyment in Heavy Rain or Read Dead Redemption, but I realize I am in a small minority of core gamers that don't dig on those.

And sure, re-releases are fine and dandy. I just don't get your whole argument of PS2 / Xbox being obsolete. You can still buy PS2's brand new from any retailer. I don't consider my SNES obsolete because it still plays the same games it always does and always will. You're talking about convenience at this point.

And for sharing these games with new generations - You'd be surprised how much older generations of games don't hold up with new players. Nobody is going to pick up the old Splinter Cell games except for people who had played them already. Why would they, they already have Double Agent and Conviction to play. In their head, the latest iteration of a game is probably the best. Aside from just getting HD graphics this gen, games have evolved tremendously. You can tell when you're playing an old game by the style, direction, attitude, and gameplay mechanics. It's a brave new world out there now, and really you'd be surprised how flat some older games are now that you've seen better. They might keep your interest for a few hours tops, but you'll find yourself taking breaks between sessions with newer games.

Anyways - I was originally just stating that if they keep putting out EVERYTHING that was last gen, that sales that encourage people to do so (im sure GoW did amazing) will diminish, and then they'll stop doing them. I'm hoping they get to more AAA games before that happens.

@Punkrawk Bbob
I'm glad you realize that your statements only reflect your own taste and not objective truth. Now I hope you'll realize that this admission makes your original point moot: publishers are re-releasing games that were popular and critically acclaimed, not games that you personally liked. You may disagree, but obviously enough people liked Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell to make a re-release of these games profitable.

Your next point once again appears to confuse your own experiences with objective reality. Having an SNES or Xbox is great, but they're "obsolete" in the sense that they're not being sold in stores and not being developed for anymore, and not all of us got one while they were. For you, yes, this may be a question of convenience, but for many people it's a question of being able to play the games at all, or at least being able to do so without spending a handful of time and money.

You'd be surprised how many classic games hold up far better than you'd think against the games of today. You're implying that modern games are inherently superior to their predecessors, which seems odd. Modern games are more streamlined than their predecessors, true, but that doesn't necessarily translate into them being better. You're also implying that "modern gamers" - i.e., in this context, apparently people who didn't play these games last gen - don't have the patience or interest to play games that don't follow the streamlined design characteristic of contemporary games. I'd heavily beg to differ on that. Put, say, Super Mario World or Chrono Trigger in the hands of nearly any gamer, and they'll enjoy it. Those games play just as well today as they did when they were new. Furthermore, plenty of last-gen games - Metroid Prime, Metal Gear Solid 3, Resident Evil 4, Super Smash Bros. Melee, Final Fantasy X, Ninja Gaiden - can easily be argued to be superior to their more streamlined current-gen equivalents. You assume that every gamer younger than you will be unable to play old games since they have been weaned on new ones, and I'm saying this is flat-out wrong. I, for one, am someone who has never picked up the old Splinter Cell games, liked the game design philosophy of previous generations better than the current one, and will most likely be picking up this collection for precisely those reasons.

I can somewhat understand your concern about the market becoming oversaturated with re-releases, but honestly I'm not too worried about it. I think most publishers have done a pretty good job of picking and choosing which games to upgrade for this generation, and of course services like Virtual Console, PSN and GOG allow them to re-release old games, even ones that maybe aren't that great, at low cost and completely intact, and look how popular those services are. I don't think the appeal and marketability of old games will ever die as long as those games are still reasonably good, or even just well-marketed. Look how much leverage Square Enix has gotten out of the first Final Fantasy game, and really, if any classic game has aged poorly, it's that. But it's still going strong thanks to good marketing, brand recognition, affordable pricing, and periodic graphical and interface updates. It's honestly a damn good model for keeping old games alive, which many of them deserve.

@Punkrawk Bbob
I disagree. I'm looking to buy all the collections you mentioned

@gatotsu911 Well-stated, and fully agree with the last two sentences. I myself am excited to be able to re-buy stuff which still contains all the particulars of the originals, just cleaned-up. Really enjoying the Sly, though would love to see R&C and J&D-- those three were the massive platforms of the ps2 generation-- they all deserve remakes.

@gatotsu911

"You're implying that modern games are inherently superior to their predecessors, which seems odd. Modern games are more streamlined than their predecessors, true, but that doesn't necessarily translate into them being better. You're also implying that "modern gamers" - i.e., in this context, apparently people who didn't play these games last gen - don't have the patience or interest to play games that don't follow the streamlined design characteristic of contemporary games. I'd heavily beg to differ on that."

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying modern games are inherently superior, I'm saying they're transformed from what they were. The way I see it there has been three "true" generations of games, and a fourth starting to form. The first focused on score. Obviously arcades, but early consoles were based on how far you could get and how much score you could rack up. The next generation was focused on gameplay. Such titles as Mario Kart, fighters, platformers, etc. Score was slowly removed, but still replaced by challenges and lives. Then the third generation came where lives and challenges fell wayside to immersiveness, realism, and narrative. We're currently at the end of this I'd say, or in the middle. I only say that because there is a sub-split generation to MP games, where online is key as co-op disappears and games are released built primarily around online (Halo series, Team Fortress, CoD, Warcraft, etc).

Anyways, it's just difficult for gamers who were raised on a generation of frequent save points, infinite chances, and complex systems to appreciate challenge based games with limited lives and continues, where failing a mission meant to start from the beginning again. For example, your Splinter Cell games now allow you to be noticed and keep playing on, just now having to kill and hide the bodies. The first two Splinter Cells had a "get caught three times and repeat the mission from the start" mechanics. Stuff like that gets hard to relate or appreciate for someone raised on the new stuff. Kind of like it's hard for most people raised on SNES to appreciate getting an hour long session of Pac-Man or Galaga on one quarter.

I appreciate your viewpoint and being civil with this - I still stick by my fears of over-saturation of shovelware being put into HD and released on the PS3 - the PS2 had a ton of mediocre titles that may flood the PS3. The companies not developing anything fresh seem the ones more likely to do this as well, since they have the free time.

As for being obsolete, yeah the SNES I can see your "cant purchase!" viewpoint... But the Xbox360 is fully backwards compatible with most Xbox games (hell, some classics are avail through their LIVE service), and some PS3s play PS2 games, and PS2's are still on the market. You can get like 15 PS2 games used at gamestop for $30, the bare minimum price of these rereleases. I think if you have genuine interest that's a very viable solution.

Finally - Giving a good old game to a new gamers does NOT work. I've seen gems like Chrono Trigger, Super Mario Kart, Marvel vs Capcom 2, Goldeneye, Final Fantasy 7, and Tekken 2 be ignored because they couldn't get into them, the games were too dated for them. If you weren't raised on them, it's incredibly hard. Not impossible, but most of the time their interest will be on the newest similar game. Not because it's better, but because it's more accessible. HD is a bitch.