nickorette
10-28-2006, 02:28 PM
I'm writing this as a kind of feedback for splinter cell double agent for the xbox 360. I want to be as constructive as possible for the next splinter cell, by hopefully pointing out the flaws in this game and pointing out suggestions for the next. I feel a game's negative aspects are more worth mentioning in a review than good aspects. You find those on the back of a box, or in previews.
Double Agent
1st off is single player. I feel the core gameplay is pretty much the same as what I'd expect from a splinter cell game. But the trend I've noticed is that each splinter cell seems to be getting shorter and shorter, and this one definately ends up being the shortest. It's kind of annoying to see the same level played 4 times over (JBA HQ) in order to add to the overall time played in campaign, which still ends up being incredibly short.
As far as gadgets are concerned, I felt that many felt kind of gimiky. In the other splinter cells, they always had a purpose, as in it was probably beneficial to use them in order to complete your mission. For example, the thermal vision in the other games had you using it to see through fog in a meat plant, punching in a keycode from a recently used key pad or detecting mines in a mine field, or even using it to see through objects. I found that the thermal vision is very limited in this game, as it was difficult to see enemies, even through ice in the tanker mission, or just walls in general, and I can't point out one point in this game where I was actually required to use them. Same with the emp vision. Actually, finding out enemy locations now just renders all previous enemy locating gadgets useless (thermal, emp, sticky cams), because of the 3D map and the active map in the bottom left of the screen. I think the game would have been more engadging if the 3D map did not point out enemy locations, which in the end would be forcing you to actually use the gadgets.
As far as moves are concerned, I felt that some were over implemented, and others were underimplemented. The ledge pull, and the corner-subdue were awesome moves, but I think the oportunities for them to be used were far too much. While things like the wall-split and the ceiling-pipe-subdue were almost non-existent.
I think the level design was good, but it really was a step away from where chaos theory had left off. There were times when you were given multiple paths, but they more often then not all funneled down to the same areas. I was nice to see big and open maps, but they were few and far between.
I think the graphics were good, certainly not an eye sore, but not really what I'd expect from a splinter cell game. The first splinter cell pushed the boundries of gaming with the introduction of active shadows, and the ability to use them as cover. The second splinter cell looked very nice by the ability of being able to render so much foliage at once without any graphical problems or glitches, and chaos theory pushed the boundries of the xbox by being one the the best looking games to ever be made for it. The game was just hands down beautiful looking, both design wise and graphically. To tell you the truth, Double Agent just looks like a high res version of chaos theory with a few open maps. Definately not what'd be expected from a splinter cell game. I could probably guarentee that the game's not running on more than one core.
For the sound aspect of the game, I think the ambient is really good, and really sets the atmosphere, but it was sad to see the cover of sound feature from choas theory gone. It's not too realistic to be able to hear someone even running behind you (nevermind crouch walking) when you have a gun shooting on full auto at an enemy. Or since when can you hear someone's footsteps amounst a noisy generator?
By the time the game finished I had realised that there were very few guard conversations. I thought they were almost like a trademark for this game, along with the darkly humourous interogations whch were also few and ar between.
It was also sad to see that there were no audio options. I have Dolby digital headphones, and I use them for my gaming, and when I play multiplayer, the sound is so overpowering I can't even hear my team, and there is no way to adjust.
As far as multiplayer is concerned I found it's very easy to get into and fun for a little while. It's fustrating to see so few options compared to the last game. It's seems like in order to make the game more accessible, it's lost it's depth, with smaller levels, fewer gadgets, and faster paced gameplay. I really don't like how the gameplay forces you to play a certain way. Spies are just supposed to hack the files and thats it. I mean with the inclusion of hte automatic spy detector, there really is no way to sneak up on spies anymore. I think what made the multiplayer interesting and inque in the last generation was just the amount of things your could do, the gadgets you have and the rare slow paced gameplay. I think with that missing, your loosing alot of potential purchasers. You have to keep in mind that people only buy games for two reasons: 1) amazing single player with lots of replayability and/or 2) well designed multiplayer with lots of replay value. To a new player, there's three levels with one gametype and matches that are covered with lag and glitches. It doesn't help that the claimed "coop" is just vs with bots, compared to chaos theory, which did amazingly well with it's own specially desinged multiplayer maps. It won't take long for word of mouth get out that this spinter cell is a "mere rental".
Splinter Cell 5 suggestions
I think the concept for the single player double agent and the trust system is wonderful, but it was implemented poorly. Throughout the entire game you feel very detached from the rest of the terorists, despite all the amazing feats your thrown in to do in the missions. I think that if the HQ idea was used in the next splinter cell, I think it'd need a kind of restructuring. I'd think that it's be sweet if you went back to the HQ after each mission, but it was up to you what you wanted to do there. If you didn't feel like doing anything, you could go to your bed and go to sleep, and wake up the next day for a new mission, in which you'd have to go to the roof top to catch your chopper for a ride to the next level. Or if you felt like exploring you could go and do the mini games if you wanted, and say, surprise the terrorists. Say later if you run into one of them in the hall, they'd call you over and say "nice work on the mine assembly, I'm impressed". And behind the scenes your trust would go up. None of the visual representation of the trust meter, since when making choices it all comes down to which ever bar was lower.
The game would be much more engaging if when you were given a significant choice, like killing an innocent man, you'd remember what the terrorists have been saying about you instead of relying on a bar. Like say your walking around and you hear a guy or two talkng, "I don't know about that fisher guy, something's not right about him" or if you screw something up you'll hear someone say to you that your "really running on thin ice". And then when your presented with a situation like that, you'll know, from past queues that if you don't kill this innocent man, it's probably going to be over for you. Or say your running on good terms with the terrorists, then if you don't kill the innocent man, you' be taunted later by the guys for being a whimp. But if you kill the man instantly, and your already in good terms, you'd get a rep for being a cold hearted killer, and the terrorists would respect your for that.
Also, I think that the trust system should be for more than just being able to do a bonus mission at the end. I think that it'd make more sense if the more trust you earned, the higher up in the terrorists ranks you'd be. Like say you start on the bottom, you get to share quarters with all the other guys, and you have no security clearance. But the more behind-the-scenes-trust you gain, the higher security clearnace you'd get, and say the better quarters you'd get to sleep in and the better information you'd have access to. So if you only did the missions, it'd be compltetely possible to finish the game without exploring all of the HQ since there wasn't enough trust gained by just the mission. This system would encourage those to do all the mini games and running around the HQ to raise trust and get into high security areas, but it would not force it.
I don't think trust could only be gained by favors either. I think trust could be gained by just doing things like randomly walking up to one of the higher ranked terrorists and having conversations with them, or even playing cards or a game of chess to pass the time. This would also add to the depth of the characters, and if you knew them long enough, and did all the posible interactions, then you'd start to feel attached to the character. It could also play a role in a the decision making. Say the terrorists find out theres a mole in their organization(you), and they think it's one of the characters that your really attached to. And in the end your given the gun and asked whether or not to kill this guy; this character that you've really come to know over the time you've spent in the HQ. Say you kill him, then the terrorists think the mole is gone and that's it, they stop worrying about a mole and in the end would make your job easier since they wouldn't always be on alert. You'd be gaining trust to possibly gain up a security level to have higher access to files and things you'd need to complete your mission. Or on the flip side; if you don't kill him, the terrorists are kind of weary about you and they still know there's going to be a mole around, so in turn they're going to be more alert and there's going to be greater consequences if your caught sifting through someone's desk after you've recently been promoted to a higher security level. But in the end there'd still be benefits. Say the guy was some sort of gunsmith. And for saving his life, he'd outfit the SC20K with a longer barrel for better accuracy, or a modififcation to make the silencer more quiet. So things would not be so black and white like in double agent. The choice to make was always the good choice, or the choice you had to do in order to not loose all your trust with somone. I hope that choices in splinter cell 5 will acutally have meaning, with positives and negatives on both sides of the decision.
As for multiplayer, I'd suggest a totally new restructuring. Scrap the fast paced gameplay, the small maps, and for the love of god the spy/merc detectors. The immersion for being a sneaky spy is totally lost when the opponent has a audio and visual queue beeping on the screen that there's a spy nearby. Make the mercs job easier by making it one or two bullet kills on the spys and make the controls much less clunky. If possible, make it really feel like a 1st person shooter. Bring back the cameras and motion detectors, so those don't just fly through the maps, they actually have to watch where they're going. Introduce gadents again, maybe even new ones like instead of noisily breaking glass, how about a glass cutter? Or a emp gun like whats used in single player. Or even an emp gun that's permanent, but at the same time will alert the other team if a camera or sensor is taken out. Maybe even Introduce some of the coop moves from chaos theory. It'd definately encourage teamwork, and I think it'd be rediculously awesome to be able to boost a friend up to a high place in a multiplayer match and then use him as a human ladder to get up to him and finally lower him via rope to get to an objective. I think even just more moves from single player would be a big bonus. I still think the only way to kill a merc should be through neck snapping, but you should have more options to knock a merc out. Like hanging from a pipe and knocking him out as he passes under, or maybe an elbow to the side when they're coming through a doorway.
For file downloading I'd suggest it'd be more interactive. Instead of waiting for the bar to fill up, how about having it so you have to hack one of the terminals to get the info. So you'd have one of those single player hacking devices and you'd have to lock down each number while at the same time watch out for the flashlights of approaching nearby guards. You could make it complex enough that it'd take just as long as it currently does.
You could even stray from hacking a terminal to doing something like stealing an object. Say there is 4 safes in a map and you need to crack a safe instead of just hacking in order to get what you need. It'd switch things up from the regular hacking and would offer more replay by keeeping things interesting.
And last but not least, I think you'd really hit the sweet spot if you could get 4v4 for multiplayer. I know your having trouble with 3v3 right now, but if a launch title (Pefect Dark Zero) can get 32 people in one match, then surely 8 can't be that hard.
Anyways, what do you guys think? Any other suggestions/thoughts?
Double Agent
1st off is single player. I feel the core gameplay is pretty much the same as what I'd expect from a splinter cell game. But the trend I've noticed is that each splinter cell seems to be getting shorter and shorter, and this one definately ends up being the shortest. It's kind of annoying to see the same level played 4 times over (JBA HQ) in order to add to the overall time played in campaign, which still ends up being incredibly short.
As far as gadgets are concerned, I felt that many felt kind of gimiky. In the other splinter cells, they always had a purpose, as in it was probably beneficial to use them in order to complete your mission. For example, the thermal vision in the other games had you using it to see through fog in a meat plant, punching in a keycode from a recently used key pad or detecting mines in a mine field, or even using it to see through objects. I found that the thermal vision is very limited in this game, as it was difficult to see enemies, even through ice in the tanker mission, or just walls in general, and I can't point out one point in this game where I was actually required to use them. Same with the emp vision. Actually, finding out enemy locations now just renders all previous enemy locating gadgets useless (thermal, emp, sticky cams), because of the 3D map and the active map in the bottom left of the screen. I think the game would have been more engadging if the 3D map did not point out enemy locations, which in the end would be forcing you to actually use the gadgets.
As far as moves are concerned, I felt that some were over implemented, and others were underimplemented. The ledge pull, and the corner-subdue were awesome moves, but I think the oportunities for them to be used were far too much. While things like the wall-split and the ceiling-pipe-subdue were almost non-existent.
I think the level design was good, but it really was a step away from where chaos theory had left off. There were times when you were given multiple paths, but they more often then not all funneled down to the same areas. I was nice to see big and open maps, but they were few and far between.
I think the graphics were good, certainly not an eye sore, but not really what I'd expect from a splinter cell game. The first splinter cell pushed the boundries of gaming with the introduction of active shadows, and the ability to use them as cover. The second splinter cell looked very nice by the ability of being able to render so much foliage at once without any graphical problems or glitches, and chaos theory pushed the boundries of the xbox by being one the the best looking games to ever be made for it. The game was just hands down beautiful looking, both design wise and graphically. To tell you the truth, Double Agent just looks like a high res version of chaos theory with a few open maps. Definately not what'd be expected from a splinter cell game. I could probably guarentee that the game's not running on more than one core.
For the sound aspect of the game, I think the ambient is really good, and really sets the atmosphere, but it was sad to see the cover of sound feature from choas theory gone. It's not too realistic to be able to hear someone even running behind you (nevermind crouch walking) when you have a gun shooting on full auto at an enemy. Or since when can you hear someone's footsteps amounst a noisy generator?
By the time the game finished I had realised that there were very few guard conversations. I thought they were almost like a trademark for this game, along with the darkly humourous interogations whch were also few and ar between.
It was also sad to see that there were no audio options. I have Dolby digital headphones, and I use them for my gaming, and when I play multiplayer, the sound is so overpowering I can't even hear my team, and there is no way to adjust.
As far as multiplayer is concerned I found it's very easy to get into and fun for a little while. It's fustrating to see so few options compared to the last game. It's seems like in order to make the game more accessible, it's lost it's depth, with smaller levels, fewer gadgets, and faster paced gameplay. I really don't like how the gameplay forces you to play a certain way. Spies are just supposed to hack the files and thats it. I mean with the inclusion of hte automatic spy detector, there really is no way to sneak up on spies anymore. I think what made the multiplayer interesting and inque in the last generation was just the amount of things your could do, the gadgets you have and the rare slow paced gameplay. I think with that missing, your loosing alot of potential purchasers. You have to keep in mind that people only buy games for two reasons: 1) amazing single player with lots of replayability and/or 2) well designed multiplayer with lots of replay value. To a new player, there's three levels with one gametype and matches that are covered with lag and glitches. It doesn't help that the claimed "coop" is just vs with bots, compared to chaos theory, which did amazingly well with it's own specially desinged multiplayer maps. It won't take long for word of mouth get out that this spinter cell is a "mere rental".
Splinter Cell 5 suggestions
I think the concept for the single player double agent and the trust system is wonderful, but it was implemented poorly. Throughout the entire game you feel very detached from the rest of the terorists, despite all the amazing feats your thrown in to do in the missions. I think that if the HQ idea was used in the next splinter cell, I think it'd need a kind of restructuring. I'd think that it's be sweet if you went back to the HQ after each mission, but it was up to you what you wanted to do there. If you didn't feel like doing anything, you could go to your bed and go to sleep, and wake up the next day for a new mission, in which you'd have to go to the roof top to catch your chopper for a ride to the next level. Or if you felt like exploring you could go and do the mini games if you wanted, and say, surprise the terrorists. Say later if you run into one of them in the hall, they'd call you over and say "nice work on the mine assembly, I'm impressed". And behind the scenes your trust would go up. None of the visual representation of the trust meter, since when making choices it all comes down to which ever bar was lower.
The game would be much more engaging if when you were given a significant choice, like killing an innocent man, you'd remember what the terrorists have been saying about you instead of relying on a bar. Like say your walking around and you hear a guy or two talkng, "I don't know about that fisher guy, something's not right about him" or if you screw something up you'll hear someone say to you that your "really running on thin ice". And then when your presented with a situation like that, you'll know, from past queues that if you don't kill this innocent man, it's probably going to be over for you. Or say your running on good terms with the terrorists, then if you don't kill the innocent man, you' be taunted later by the guys for being a whimp. But if you kill the man instantly, and your already in good terms, you'd get a rep for being a cold hearted killer, and the terrorists would respect your for that.
Also, I think that the trust system should be for more than just being able to do a bonus mission at the end. I think that it'd make more sense if the more trust you earned, the higher up in the terrorists ranks you'd be. Like say you start on the bottom, you get to share quarters with all the other guys, and you have no security clearance. But the more behind-the-scenes-trust you gain, the higher security clearnace you'd get, and say the better quarters you'd get to sleep in and the better information you'd have access to. So if you only did the missions, it'd be compltetely possible to finish the game without exploring all of the HQ since there wasn't enough trust gained by just the mission. This system would encourage those to do all the mini games and running around the HQ to raise trust and get into high security areas, but it would not force it.
I don't think trust could only be gained by favors either. I think trust could be gained by just doing things like randomly walking up to one of the higher ranked terrorists and having conversations with them, or even playing cards or a game of chess to pass the time. This would also add to the depth of the characters, and if you knew them long enough, and did all the posible interactions, then you'd start to feel attached to the character. It could also play a role in a the decision making. Say the terrorists find out theres a mole in their organization(you), and they think it's one of the characters that your really attached to. And in the end your given the gun and asked whether or not to kill this guy; this character that you've really come to know over the time you've spent in the HQ. Say you kill him, then the terrorists think the mole is gone and that's it, they stop worrying about a mole and in the end would make your job easier since they wouldn't always be on alert. You'd be gaining trust to possibly gain up a security level to have higher access to files and things you'd need to complete your mission. Or on the flip side; if you don't kill him, the terrorists are kind of weary about you and they still know there's going to be a mole around, so in turn they're going to be more alert and there's going to be greater consequences if your caught sifting through someone's desk after you've recently been promoted to a higher security level. But in the end there'd still be benefits. Say the guy was some sort of gunsmith. And for saving his life, he'd outfit the SC20K with a longer barrel for better accuracy, or a modififcation to make the silencer more quiet. So things would not be so black and white like in double agent. The choice to make was always the good choice, or the choice you had to do in order to not loose all your trust with somone. I hope that choices in splinter cell 5 will acutally have meaning, with positives and negatives on both sides of the decision.
As for multiplayer, I'd suggest a totally new restructuring. Scrap the fast paced gameplay, the small maps, and for the love of god the spy/merc detectors. The immersion for being a sneaky spy is totally lost when the opponent has a audio and visual queue beeping on the screen that there's a spy nearby. Make the mercs job easier by making it one or two bullet kills on the spys and make the controls much less clunky. If possible, make it really feel like a 1st person shooter. Bring back the cameras and motion detectors, so those don't just fly through the maps, they actually have to watch where they're going. Introduce gadents again, maybe even new ones like instead of noisily breaking glass, how about a glass cutter? Or a emp gun like whats used in single player. Or even an emp gun that's permanent, but at the same time will alert the other team if a camera or sensor is taken out. Maybe even Introduce some of the coop moves from chaos theory. It'd definately encourage teamwork, and I think it'd be rediculously awesome to be able to boost a friend up to a high place in a multiplayer match and then use him as a human ladder to get up to him and finally lower him via rope to get to an objective. I think even just more moves from single player would be a big bonus. I still think the only way to kill a merc should be through neck snapping, but you should have more options to knock a merc out. Like hanging from a pipe and knocking him out as he passes under, or maybe an elbow to the side when they're coming through a doorway.
For file downloading I'd suggest it'd be more interactive. Instead of waiting for the bar to fill up, how about having it so you have to hack one of the terminals to get the info. So you'd have one of those single player hacking devices and you'd have to lock down each number while at the same time watch out for the flashlights of approaching nearby guards. You could make it complex enough that it'd take just as long as it currently does.
You could even stray from hacking a terminal to doing something like stealing an object. Say there is 4 safes in a map and you need to crack a safe instead of just hacking in order to get what you need. It'd switch things up from the regular hacking and would offer more replay by keeeping things interesting.
And last but not least, I think you'd really hit the sweet spot if you could get 4v4 for multiplayer. I know your having trouble with 3v3 right now, but if a launch title (Pefect Dark Zero) can get 32 people in one match, then surely 8 can't be that hard.
Anyways, what do you guys think? Any other suggestions/thoughts?