Splinter Cell: Double Agent's an extreme disappointment--especially the single-player mode. Like every Splinter Cell game, the story's an afterthought which neither connects nor immerses the player into its world from start to finish. The heart and soul of Splinter Cell games is the single-player mode, not multiplayer. In fact, Splinter Cell shouldn't even contain a multiplayer mode. That's what Rainbow Six is for. Sam Fisher's the star but Ubisoft Shanghai and Montreal have forgotten that. Double Agent isn't next-gen Splinter Cell, it's a Chaos Theory update.

Splinter Cell's supposed to be a game of survival but it doesn't act like it; the enemy's suicidal and has no value of life. It's not authentic to what it tries to be: a survival-of-the-fittest game. Tom Clancy's games don't play like his award-winning books. And that's the problem with Splinter Cell...it needs its first great story, starting with ConViction; a lengthy single-player mode; and realistic enemy intelligence, while adding something new everywhere else.

quote:

Originally posted by VIP_EJC:
Splinter Cell: Double Agent's an extreme disappointment--especially the single-player mode. Like every Splinter Cell game, the story's an afterthought which neither connects nor immerses the player into its world from start to finish. The heart and soul of Splinter Cell games is the single-player mode, not multiplayer. In fact, Splinter Cell shouldn't even contain a multiplayer mode. That's what Rainbow Six is for. Sam Fisher's the star but Ubisoft Shanghai and Montreal have forgotten that. Double Agent isn't next-gen Splinter Cell, it's a Chaos Theory update.

Splinter Cell's supposed to be a game of survival but it doesn't act like it; the enemy is suicidal and has no value of life. It's not authentic to what it tries to be: a survival-of-the-fittest game. Tom Clancy's games don't play like his award-winning books. And that's the problem with Splinter Cell...it needs its first great story, starting with ConViction; a lengthy single-player mode; and realistic enemy intelligence, while adding something new everywhere else.

Apparently the Devs agree with you and are making the story the most important thing. I agree and disagree with you. The game play IMO should be first and foremost then the story line. The AI could definitely use an improvement and yes "new things" are appreciated. Getting rid of L/S has completely taken any thing that resembles SC and burned it completely. I think following the spirit of the books would make for a better game indeed.I just hope that in trying to make SC like AC they don't kill this series. I hope every one takes time to read the SC books because they really are good for light reading. Also I agree DA was too short a game. They really needed to add some better levels. All the JBA missions really felt like a short cut. As for getting rid of multi-player I would not care but that may result in a linch mob full of angry Muli-player guys. I would disagree about coop muli-player though because that was a very welcome addition to SCCT. DA had a very thrown together feel to it, but SCCT was very polished and I would like to see a real expansion on it's single player adding in some of the new moves and weapons/gadgets from DA (like the cool throat chop and grab from the wall and the new mines).

The development team needs to allocate all of their time and resources to the single-player game, not divvy them between single and multiplayer.

Conviction needs to end the Splinter Cell franchise.

quote:

Originally posted by VIP_EJC:
The development team needs to allocate all of their time and resources to the single-player game, not divvy them between single and multiplayer.

Which is why Ubi Montreal/Ubi Shanghai did the Single Player and Ubi Annecy the Versus-mode and Ubi Milan I believe the Coop of SCCT.

Ubisoft Montreal's the only Splinter Cell team I trust.

quote:

Originally posted by VIP_EJC:
The development team needs to allocate all of their time and resources to the single-player game, not divvy them between single and multiplayer.

Single player kind of sounds okay but Multiplayer will suck unless it goes with CT style MvS

quote:

Originally posted by VIP_EJC:
Splinter Cell: Double Agent's an extreme disappointment--especially the single-player mode. Like every Splinter Cell game, the story's an afterthought which neither connects nor immerses the player into its world from start to finish. The heart and soul of Splinter Cell games is the single-player mode, not multiplayer. In fact, Splinter Cell shouldn't even contain a multiplayer mode. That's what Rainbow Six is for. Sam Fisher's the star but Ubisoft Shanghai and Montreal have forgotten that. Double Agent isn't next-gen Splinter Cell, it's a Chaos Theory update.

Splinter Cell's supposed to be a game of survival but it doesn't act like it; the enemy's suicidal and has no value of life. It's not authentic to what it tries to be: a survival-of-the-fittest game. Tom Clancy's games don't play like his award-winning books. And that's the problem with Splinter Cell...it needs its first great story, starting with ConViction; a lengthy single-player mode; and realistic enemy intelligence, while adding something new everywhere else.

You have to realise that just because you don't enjoy the multiplayer, does not mean they shouldn't include it. Some people play SC only for SvM, and there is no doubt that a multiplayer mode adds longevity to a title. And saying Rainbow Six is for multiplayer while Splinter Cell is for single player is a little stupid, the multiplayer of each is very different. It isn't even comparing apples and oranges, it is more like comparing apples and steak.

Also, I don't think putting all their time into the story is a good idea. If you want good stories, read a book, see a movie. The main objective of a game needs to be to deliver enjoyable gameplay. While I agree the plots of previous SC games don't compare to Tom Clancy books, attempting to make it as good will more likely than not end up with sub par gameplay, and is still unlikely to deliver a story of the quality you are asking for.

quote:

Originally posted by EskimoBob32:

quote:

Originally posted by VIP_EJC:
Splinter Cell: Double Agent's an extreme disappointment--especially the single-player mode. Like every Splinter Cell game, the story's an afterthought which neither connects nor immerses the player into its world from start to finish. The heart and soul of Splinter Cell games is the single-player mode, not multiplayer. In fact, Splinter Cell shouldn't even contain a multiplayer mode. That's what Rainbow Six is for. Sam Fisher's the star but Ubisoft Shanghai and Montreal have forgotten that. Double Agent isn't next-gen Splinter Cell, it's a Chaos Theory update.

Splinter Cell's supposed to be a game of survival but it doesn't act like it; the enemy's suicidal and has no value of life. It's not authentic to what it tries to be: a survival-of-the-fittest game. Tom Clancy's games don't play like his award-winning books. And that's the problem with Splinter Cell...it needs its first great story, starting with ConViction; a lengthy single-player mode; and realistic enemy intelligence, while adding something new everywhere else.

You have to realise that just because you don't enjoy the multiplayer, does not mean they shouldn't include it. Some people play SC only for SvM, and there is no doubt that a multiplayer mode adds longevity to a title. And saying Rainbow Six is for multiplayer while Splinter Cell is for single player is a little stupid, the multiplayer of each is very different. It isn't even comparing apples and oranges, it is more like comparing apples and steak.

Also, I don't think putting all their time into the story is a good idea. If you want good stories, read a book, see a movie. The main objective of a game needs to be to deliver enjoyable gameplay. While I agree the plots of previous SC games don't compare to Tom Clancy books, attempting to make it as good will more likely than not end up with sub par gameplay, and is still unlikely to deliver a story of the quality you are asking for.

Agree yet again 100% Bob is indeed correct video games are not the medium for detailed stories. There are good story lines in games but the main focus should be allocated to the game. Well this may seem like common sense to some of us there are others still that seem to need to ride the short bus of logic. Show me a game where the Devs focused on the story first and added game play as an afterthought, and ill show you a game that takes the short cut to the "cheapo rack."(that Shenmue game for instance)

There are plenty of multiplayer games but Splinter Cell shouldn't be one of 'em. Sam Fisher's the star, not Spies/Mercs. There's not a correlation amongst Sam and the Spies/Mercs; multiplayer feels like it's there just because of some silly standard that every modern game needs a multiplayer mode. Rainbox Six is a perfect multiplayer game, because it allows multiple players to control a Team Rainbow member (the game's stars) and work as a team to achieve their common goal: eliminate the terrorists.

I want a complete gaming experience; that requires a well-told story which is paramount to an action-adventure game as Splinter Cell. Many gamers and I don't like to read books--they're boring and drowsy. I prefer to experience the story, not read hundreds of pages with tiny black-printed words on them and try to use my imagination. The Splinter Cell team has story writers; the story has no affect on gameplay quality.

quote:

Originally posted by soron:
indeed correct video games are not the medium for detailed stories.

Disagreed 100%.

Here are my priorities for what makes a great game (this is referring to stealth/action/RPG/shooters and not casual/sports games).

#1 Game play

(close)#2 Level Design/graphics

#3 Inventory/gadgets/weapons

#4 maybe a story line if you have time for it (see Black).

Most ppl only watch the cut scenes only the first time they play anyway. I hate when games have cut scenes you can't skip, it really annoys the **** out of me. Yeah story is cool the first time you play but I don't want to hear the same annoying cut scene every time I have to reload the level or replay the game. So when all is said and done I remember games for their fun aspects not "wow what a great story."

A branching story which the player writes through their actions, not a linear story that's constant every play. I want to learn everything about Sam Fisher--from his favorite food to hobbies. He's that kind of character.

First Post Ever.

I have loved Splinter Cell since the first. Halo and SC are the series of which im just satisfied. Im surprised of what im reading here. How SC sucks?

I have played them only on xbox and realistic world with audiovisuals, interesting charachters, interactivity and AI along the realistic free movement are what defines Splinter Cell to me.

SC really catched me from first touch, just little small and simple. Pandora Tomorrow was improvement in many ways, but the tube jungle levels were horrible besides the other odd level designs. Chaos Theory Brought game back to start with everything being spectacular from levels to audiovisuals to movement to AI. Double Agent (XBOX, no sun) was again just small step somewhere, great ideas but allies and the trust system were bad (Bad made, not bad ideas)and took me out of movie feel. However the Story really started in this which made this movie again, before it was just Sam, Lambert and the rest. DA gave a story really to see. From start i saw actually saw plot involving Sam going somewhere. Doing some tough decisions and progressing through new your skyscrapers killing my old friends really was epic. Those Credits, the music and the feel during credits was something undescribable. The video playing and silent melodical music was just perfect. I have watched the credits many times just to memorize that. That has happened once before, during Halo:CE. Now i really want to see what happens next.

So Conviction. Im really excited. I watched some info and this change can be good. Old fashioned SC could have lasted 100s of years, but now series moves somewhere. Worst possibility is that we run through crowded tubes, surely that cant happen? If CT could add voice meter, why couldnt Social meter just be added next to them?
I have no problems visioning Sam moving through levels hiding in groups, shadows and obstacles. And that all likely changes at some point. This time its just all about Sam Fisher, i really cant complain about that.
Multiplayer is fine too, it was fun idea in PT to do campaign releated missions in MP, that could continue. Just not too much effort to it, Rainbow six, Halo, Half Life and all others have already taken the cake. But Mercenary vs Spy was more interesting, maybe add players and multiple teams (7Mercs vs 1Spy, 2spys vs 2 spys vs 4 mercs)

Summing up.
-Realistic graphics and audio.
-Different levels and tasks.
-Sam Fisher with almost all possible moves (Fill up the library, SWAT turn was nice etc.)
-Much useful Gadgets.
-Story really progressing and involving the most important, Sam.
-Smart, lively AI
-Interaction (TVs, Radios, News, lights, Extras like Baseball newsfiles in CT)
I cant see why this change couldnt be great. Only questions are level design, shortness or unreplayability and overall laziness which i sensed of DA.

quote:

Originally posted by soron:
Here are my priorities for what makes a great game (this is referring to stealth/action/RPG/shooters and not casual/sports games).

#1 Game play

Uh Oh. I have heard exactly same lectures in Bungie forums. But no one can define gameplay accurately, "its just force that keeps me playing the game" Most seem to refer it as controls and player moveability. Vital yes.

Game is all about overall. Game has to look and sound good. It has to challenge me in good way, not giving sucking controls or situation. Levels have to be good. The more ways to do things the better. Game fails if it doesnt have all made well and even then it can lose to games which have better extras.

Driv3r: Great overall audiovisuals with bugs, good driving and story, horrible walking and AI. But still i like and remember it.

Cold Fear: Horrible basic controls, without 2nd person completely unplayable. Good looking and exciting environment. Very good game however.

Brothers In Arms: Overall good although flank and kill system should ruin it completely. Just boring to do again and again.

Legacy Of Kain Defiance: Pretty repetive kill and move, but story and the levels keep me playing it. Sure it has variable fighting mechanism too.

Thief: Excellent controls, excellent audiovisuals, excellent original gaming mechanic, excellent AI. But still i left it unfinished for months before finishing it. Partially because there didnt seem to be any story, just stealing stuff. At end there was good story.

Halo: Not much explaining. At halfway it started to feel numb when Flood arrived and everything became entirely new. Halo2 and 3 just continued that amazing story arc. Almost everything is or feels perfect.

Books have story, Music has music, art and films have visuals so what should games have? The mystical gameplay, nothing more? No levels, no visuals?

Games should blend all things together, at same time. When you kill your way through hordes of intelligent mutants with huge selection of weapons and clock precise control story progresses and you see huge dreamy worlds and hear real-like sounds. Thats the point of the Ultimate media.

The term gameplay's subjective; its definition varies from gamer to gamer. A lot of gamers chuck it out there, just for the heck of it. I define gameplay as the quality of all a game's parts--controls, artificial intelligence, presentation, visuals, features, audio, replay value... And the next gamer's definition of gameplay is how good or bad a game plays.

Usually gameplay is categorized as a single part of game besides technical, design and other aspects. Genre, controls and the small feats.

I would call overall of the game overall. Currently all 4 SCs have been great, but theres something keeping them off from perfection. Maybe its the shallow stories or shortness, they always seem to end just when it gets exciting. DA gave great start for actual story and i hope Conviction takes use of it and all other new possible features without taking off all the past gameplay.

Hopefully Ubi makes Conviction new, prettier, longer, replayable and have story to remember. Atleast thats now possible, with old sacred night goggles and such that would have never happened. Just new updates. And who knows how the game progresses and ends? When i first played Penitentiary I thought it was screwed Prison Break ripoff not having weapons and goggles, but afterall it was good addition to game. Bourne style can be amazing too, nothing wrong in them.

But overall opinions seem to say DA original Xbox version was best, most like old series, no unnesessary sun etc. And i agree.

Halo and Splinter Cell are the two this days top series. Halo is remarkably strong Trilogy and i both like and dislike the fact it didnt change much bethween games. Splinter Cell should have ended after CT if it would have been just nice spy action. What would situation be now if that had happened? Just fun games without real mean. Maybe 1 SC could have been enough then? Splinter Cell trilogy couldnt have stood a change against Halo, but now SC really goes where it should, they fight in different leagues and thats good. How many random terrorist threat eliminations as Sam in Hi-tech gear i could have enjoyed? Not many.

The story plot of any story based game is the most important thing, it is the driving force of the game. The games story arc and character development are crucial to the progression of most games,films,books and some music. If you simply had no story, it wouldn't make a whole lot of sence in any of the Splinter Cell games, you would be given objectives and be asking why am I doing these? A story has to present along with characters, location setting, conflicts, resoultion, climax and fin. It is obvious this worked in Splinter Cell as you have many fans, who followed the characters such as Sam, Coen, Lambert, Grim and Redding etc.. And most understand the story up to the 3rd title, the 4th being somewhat lacking. If you would go to the Assassins creed Board, you will see how many see the story of that game as the driving force.

To only have game mechanics alone i.e moving into the shadows and going past guards, would get boring so fast, without a good reason for someone to progress on, those missions are based on story elements. There are many games without storylines though, the game Spore is a good example, no story but giving the player non-linear options to progress is a reason to keep playing like The Sims, as the gamer has direct influence over their characters life and evolution. Sport games, driving games don't always have storylines, but the driving force in those is to "win", removing the win factor would be like having no story, sure the game is somewhat fun but where is the achievement and reward for doing so? Compared that to coming first in a league and getting a cup, with just game mechanics you don't get that. This can be shown with Online games such as Unreal, Counter-Strike, where the ultimate goal is to win, the conflict is to achieve a goal, thats the reward.

Games that do have stories and don't always tell them well, like the Half-Life series which asks more questions then answers any. It leaves alot to be desired when the game mechanics haven't changed for 4 games, and the repitition of those game mechanics are an eye sore. So I wouldn't agree game mechanics alone are what make a game. I think game mechanics can make a game stand out from the crowd, but not much more then that really.