http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-JRivOZz2w
Go to 59:15
Looks promising.

Yeah it looks great. I'm pretty happy with the stuff that've come out of E3 this year, between this, Dishonoured's gameplay video, and Splinter Cell: Blacklist, there's a lot to look forward to

I've been watching some of the E3 stuff.
I don't own a PS3 but this looks so good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQvY_tLE ... re=related
I was really impressed with the AI at about 5:18. I'm still not sure whether that was scripted but I'm going to assume it wasn't.

I will now teach you how to link youtube videoes with timestamps.

Here's the link to ubisofts E3 presentation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-JRivOZz2w

Here's the link to ubisofts E3 presentation at 59:15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-JRivOZz2w#t=59m15s

It all looks very promising but I can't bear to pay attention unless I know whether it's actually good or not. I really liked a few of Ubisoft Montreal's previous titles, like Far Cry 2 and the Assassin's Creed games, so I guess we can assume it's at that level of quality or higher.

I didn't thoroughly enjoy what I saw of Splinter Cell, most notably the changing of actors for Grim and Sam. But at least they've listened to the fans and are bringing back some things they too away from Conviction (like body dragging)

And Watch Dogs looks great, the short reveal trailer of it got me really interested.

That mark & execute move is the most overpowered mechanic I have ever seen, im staying the hell away.

As for Watch Dogs, didnt you watch the gameplay demo after the short trailer? Guess I should have mentioned it.

The gameplay, well it looks like the standard modern crappy mechanics....but the graphics, presentation, style & theme look fantastic. Still gameplay is the most important for me but this actually looks like the "cinematic" style that modern devs always go for actually done right for once.

Ever played Splinter Cell Conviction?

No but have seen it in action. Uses the same mechanic, yes? OP.
But I never liked Splinter Cell anyway.

It does use the same mechanic, but I'm wondering at your definition of OP.

It certainly fosters a certain playstyle, but it's not unrestricted, and they easily manage to scale up the general difficulty of the game to the point where the usefulness of mark and execute is balanced out. And of course you don't start the game with full marks, you have two marks from the start, when most situations throw more than 2 enemies at you. Timing your executions correctly so you don't just alert a bunch of people and end up in a firefight is an interesting and very stealth-game-like challenge, and of course you only get new marks by killing enemies stealthily.

I find it amusing (not to say highly annoying) that you would think yourself capable of determining the difficulty of a game that you haven't played.

Well, deciding that something is overpowered without playing it does seem judgemental. On the other hand, I can understand the general notion. For King Arthur, The Roleplaying Wargame, the pr videoes showcase the first example of spells being added to a modern total-war-like wargame.

In the video, one of the developers teleports his heavy foot right into a stack of enemy archers, and he proceeds to chainlightning another troop, and finally he does a vortex spell which consumes 8 full stacks of enemy units. Upon watching that video, magic in the strategic play clearly appears to overpower tactics completely, to the point where it ruins the traditional balance of wargames.

It's not necessarily about difficulty so much as it is about how one game element that you won't necessarily appreciate dominates all others, which is probably something you can in fact have an oppinion on without being completely unfair.

Which is why I'm wondering at his definition of overpowered, because when I think "overpowered" in a singleplayer game (never mind that the word is far more applicable in asymmetrical multiplayer, where I believe it originated) I don't think "encourages me to play the game in a different way than I want". I think "dominant strategy that makes the game too easy". As I explained, mark and execute does not make the game too easy, its built-in limitations compared to the situations the game presents you with ensures that it remains well balanced throughout. Additionally, mark and execute doesn't even render other mechanics worthless, in fact you unlock it in the first place by using other mechanics - and they just so happen to be traditional stealth mechanics. So what exactly is the objection here? That its inclusion means you're longer forced to sneak? Because that's true - in fact that's presumably the point: it's an alternative to stealth. But not an unlimited alternative. The game does in fact still force you to be stealthy, at the very least long enough to unlock and effectively deploy the mark and execute.

(As an aside that doesn't quite apply to Conviction, it always confuses me how so many stealth fans get angry when games that include stealth don't force stealth upon the player. As though your only enjoyment of stealth can be when it's your only option. What's wrong with being stealthy because it's exhilarating, challenging, and satisfying?)

Now, your trailer example. Does it account for the fact that magic might be limited in the overall game? Does it account for the fact that it might only be the obviously superior strategy in that particular situation? Does it account for the fact that the availability of such a powerful move might itself be a reward for making sound decisions and playing well in other parts of the game? And even if it does account for all that, is that reason to say that magic is overpowered, even if it's well balanced against the overall difficulty of the game? Would it not be more reasonable to say that it changes the game in a way that you might not enjoy?

Well I may not be in the position to say, but it looks like it is just playing the game for you (which it is, auto aim instakill) now I hear you do not HAVE to use it but if you try shooting em up normally you will die no matter what. I havent tried this myself but I never thought too highly of SC1 etc and now with this mark and kill it looks rediculous. Still you dont have to use it and instead stealth the whole game, but most of the time If I have a gun in my hand im gonna start a war, especially when said guns are upgradable.

Hitman Bloodmoney I thought was far better than Splinter Cell in terms of gameplay, even though the shooting sucks. But I enjoyed the stealth because multiple routes, NO mark & kill mechanic and you are rewarded with more cash to upgrade your weapons. If H:BM did not have upgradable weapons though I would have not enjoyed it as much at all. But because it did feature that I had a blast, great music, great atmosphere, some wacky locations. It was a shame the shooting sucked though but everything else was near perfect.

The shooting in Hitman was absolutely brilliant in my oppinion. I played on the hardest difficulty, and it was fucking insanely hard to shoot my way through the couple of level where I elected that route.

@ Jonas
I found myself answering no to all of your questions, apart, perhaps, from the very last one.
It _is_ presumptious to describe game balance without having played a game, because it kindof emplies that you have. That you have a firm understanding of the mechanics.

Clearly, anyone watching a trailer is not likely to; but to me, the sense that something is "OP" (...which is weird in the first place because my friends and I use the term mockingly...) is really a fear that a product is or will be sub-par in my oppinion, due to a quack making a specific aspect ridiculously powerful.

It's probably still prejudice to call something OP without playing it or examining it closely, but honestly, it conveys a specific feeling, a specific criticism, much better than the more general "I don't think I'll like that", which isn't even really a criticism.

In that sense though, the last question should probably be answered in the affirmitive: It's pretty darn stupid to level criticism at products you haven't played, because you complaints, even if taken seriously by someone somewhere, might just result in a gaming experience that translates better into one of those glimpses you got of the game; in other words, at the very best, criticism of things you don't have a clue about because you haven't played them might cause developers to dumb down future games - and that's at the very best.

Weapons too. In Borderlands for example when you're level 50, you have, say, the incredible pistol of death. It lets you at least have some chance of defeating level 52 bad-asses, however, when used on level 30 characters it's insta-death. In one case I actually killed two guys with one shot...not with an exploding round either.

Anyway, sorry for the interruption, carry on around me.