Splinter Cell: Double Agent Reviews and Impressions

spoiler! wrote:

[color=white]Jesus, I just shot Emile. Breaking Moss's neck was awesome but you can do it easily without alerting anyone.[/color]

Is it me or the extra level with Moss seemed like an after thought.

I'm glad we went to that white text trouble.

Chiggie Von Richthofen wrote:

I'm glad we went to that white text trouble.

Me too.

LobsterMobster wrote:
Chiggie Von Richthofen wrote:

I'm glad we went to that white text trouble.

Me too.

Same here...

IMAGE(http://www.createphpbb.com/phpbb/images/smiles/uhohhide.gif)

Koning_Floris wrote:

How about marketing? Are both games marketed as different games and as much? Or is the emphasis on the 360 version?

No and no. The point of having multiple versions all come out at the same time is to be able to market them under one umbrella. Can you EVER think of a time where a game was different across platforms and was marketed as such?

Madden on the 360 is very different (and highly inferior IMO) to the last-gen versions, but of course the games are all marketed as one.

*Legion* wrote:

Can you EVER think of a time where a game was different across platforms and was marketed as such?

Battlefield 2 (PC)
Battlefield 2: Modern Combat (X360)

LobsterMobster wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

Can you EVER think of a time where a game was different across platforms and was marketed as such?

Battlefield 2 (PC)
Battlefield 2: Modern Combat (X360)

Definitely a night and day comparion here. A PC-quality version of BF2 (32 v 32 players) on the 360 would be sweeeeeet...but probably not feasible.

Legion's points would make more sense to me if the two versions weren't both running on modified Chaos Theory engines. There is nothing about the 360 version that couldn't be handled on the Xbox with less polygons and lower texture resolutions. The developers even admitted as much when commenting on the original gameplan from months back: each platform sharing exactly the same levels but with the nextgens getting the Shanghai level and more insertion gameplay.

Yea well why couldn't Shanghai's job just been "next genning" up the graphics of Ubi Mont's game. It seems kinda silly to budget the development of 2 seperate games.

That would have been wonderful.

Your point about using both teams to stay on schedule makes sense, but then they went half a year over schedule.

Lobster wrote:

It's the first Splinter Cell where I wasn't constantly thinking, "How the F*CK did he see me!?" I actually beat a mission without being detected.

I find this very puzzling as this was the one that had me saying exactly that the most. Which level?

LobsterMobster wrote:

Battlefield 2 (PC)
Battlefield 2: Modern Combat (X360)

That's not one game that's different across two platforms. Those are two completely individual, separate games, released separately, with one basically just having the Battlefield name slapped onto it.

We're talking about games released at the same time, under the same name (with no extra "Modern Combat" tag to differentiate).

But yeah, that's probably the closest one could come up with, and it's not a very good analogue at that.

Danjo Olivaw wrote:

The developers even admitted as much when commenting on the original gameplan from months back: each platform sharing exactly the same levels but with the nextgens getting the Shanghai level and more insertion gameplay.

And what does the fact that that plain didn't happen tell you?

That probably what they were SAYING was a bit optimistic, and it didn't pan out that way.

Your point about using both teams to stay on schedule makes sense, but then they went half a year over schedule.

Which only makes my point stronger - how bad off schedule do you think they would've been otherwise? Don't piss off the shareholders any more than you have to.

*Legion* wrote:
Your point about using both teams to stay on schedule makes sense, but then they went half a year over schedule.

Which only makes my point stronger - how bad off schedule do you think they would've been otherwise?

I'm thinking two teams could make one game and a port faster than two completely seperate games.

The thing is, what we are suggesting is what was done in the past, Ubi Montreal designed the game, Shanghai would then port it down for PS2 and gamecube (with the exception of Pandora which they developed in its entirety).

Anyways, long story short, I really hate DA on the 360. The multiplayer is a riot, but I'm having a hard time pushing myself through the single player and I was even able to play through Pandora.

Sinatar wrote:

but I'm having a hard time pushing myself through the single player and I was even able to play through Pandora.

Is it because of the story or game play? ...or both?

Nei wrote:
Sinatar wrote:

but I'm having a hard time pushing myself through the single player and I was even able to play through Pandora.

Is it because of the story or game play? ...or both?

Story won't ever stop me from going through a game if the gameplay is good. The gameplay is really really weak.

Maybe you're tired of the genre altogether?

Mr.Green wrote:

Maybe you're tired of the genre altogether?

Yes my dislike of this one game of course means I'm tired of the genre. I just played Thief 3 a few months ago, loved it. Played through Chaos Theory a month ago, still loved it. I'm anything but tired of the genre, Double Agent is just a poorly made game. The level design is very very weak, the scenarios are generic and dull (oh look another big boat), the AI is flakier then ever and of course the dumbed down stealth mechanics don't help any.

Mr.Green wrote:

Maybe you're tired of the genre altogether?

We all know that you (possibly?) have a personal interest in wanting this game to be good. We're not saying that it was a pile of horse crap. We're just saying that it's a victim of the franchise's success. The bar got set high and this one didn't quite make it.

We were all very excited about it so the disapointment seems amplified because we can all picture how good it could have been. Don't push this off on us just because we are a little let down.

See what this game has done to us?!?

Chiggie Von Richthofen wrote:
Mr.Green wrote:

Maybe you're tired of the genre altogether?

We all know that you (possibly?) have a personal interest in wanting this game to be good. We're not saying that it was a pile of horse crap. We're just saying that it's a victim of the franchise's success. The bar got set high and this one didn't quite make it.

We were all very excited about it so the disapointment seems amplified because we can all picture how good it could have been. Don't push this off on us just because we are a little let down.

Uh, you have the wrong MrGreen.

Aw f*ck.

*edit* my apologies to the cutest evil puppy ever.

Meeeeeeeooooooooowwwwwwwwwww!

Well you know, I was just suggesting that since I honestly don't think the other ones were superior, or that much better anyway. Dumbed down stealth mechanics? As opposed to shooting lights, turn NV on, advance 30 feet, rinse, repeat? I liked the other SC's, finished them all, but in the end it always started to feel like work and I honestly was getting a little bored. Didn't happen with this one.

Anyway Sin, between that beeing very very bad and MUA beeing like the best game evar, I have a hard time to follow you. I like a few shades of grey between my black and white.

We all know that you (possibly?) have a personal interest in wanting this game to be good.

That's funny, I didn't even remember that other Mr.Green from Shangai thing. Ironically, I'm from Montreal, like the studio you're all rooting for. I guess I should be trashing on Shangai as well eh?

Danjo Olivaw wrote:

I'm thinking two teams could make one game and a port faster than two completely seperate games.

That's one of the "classical" mistakes of software engineering: "more people = faster".

In most cases, it has the exact opposite effect.

Especially when the two teams are separated by half a globe and a ton of timezones, and can't exactly walk down the hall every 10 minutes for meetings and collaboration on all the small day-to-day details.

No, I can virtually guarantee you that the whole point of what they did do was to avoid that nightmare.

Sinatar wrote:

The thing is, what we are suggesting is what was done in the past, Ubi Montreal designed the game, Shanghai would then port it down for PS2 and gamecube

True. But once you throw the 360 into the equation, it becomes a different problem.

Look at EA and Madden. For years, they've delivered the same Madden game on the Xbox, PS2, and Cube. This year, they did the same thing, but delivered a completely different game on the 360. They clearly didn't think "porting down" was the way to go, choosing instead to develop two separate games.

I sincerely doubt Madden and Splinter Cell will be the only cases of this we see.

Sadly, in both cases so far, the last-gen game was the superior one (presumably - still waiting to play Xbox SC)

Warning - Quick and Dirty "4 Levels In" Review:

1. It's Splinter Cell alright!
2. I'm more of a Hitman guy
3. Sam's got good sweat
4. I think I'm sneaked out
5. Those moral decisions are cool
6. I'm glad I got this for free
7. Did I mention I liked Hitman more?
8. Trial and error kind of pisses me off sometimes

A pretty solid title, and I'm only 3-4 levels in, but there's nothing too compelling to make me want to play this non-stop. I'll probably wrassle through the rest on a rainy Sunday afternoon sometime.

You know, I liked Hitman 2, but I've always wished Hitman was done, well, better.

The Hitman demo on 360 was just bad.

*Legion* wrote:

You know, I liked Hitman 2, but I've always wished Hitman was done, well, better.

The Hitman demo on 360 was just bad.

I agree - they picked a really s*itty level for the demo. I played the full version and I always feel like the missions are more tedious than fun. The series had great potential (possibly a multiplayer at some point) but I'm done playing these titles for a while.

*Legion* wrote:

You know, I liked Hitman 2, but I've always wished Hitman was done, well, better.

The Hitman demo on 360 was just bad.

The demo was the weakest level in the game. I wasn't sold on it either, but I picked it up for cheap, and loved almost every minute of it. I guess the psychopath in me loved the crazy, over the top environments and sadistic killing while dressed like a clown (or whatever suited the situation).

I felt like a badass playing Hitman. But whenever I play Splinter Cell I always feel like a bit of a bumbling fool who's a third rate sneaker. I guess to put it simply, I suck because I get impatient

*Legion* wrote:
Danjo Olivaw wrote:

I'm thinking two teams could make one game and a port faster than two completely seperate games.

That's one of the "classical" mistakes of software engineering: "more people = faster".

In most cases, it has the exact opposite effect.

Especially when the two teams are separated by half a globe and a ton of timezones, and can't exactly walk down the hall every 10 minutes for meetings and collaboration on all the small day-to-day details.

No, I can virtually guarantee you that the whole point of what they did do was to avoid that nightmare.

You're probably correct but I still think they dropped the ball by making two different versions. Ignoring how poorly Shanghai does, splitting the two fun multiplayer modes across two discs comes across sheisty at best, incompetent at worst.

Speaking of fun multiplayer modes, I think I've finally cracked the puzzle that is Terminus. We should be able to get a gold on the last coop mission with some fancy footwork and a little luck.

Danjo Olivaw wrote:

Speaking of fun multiplayer modes, I think I've finally cracked the puzzle that is Terminus. We should be able to get a gold on the last coop mission with some fancy footwork and a little luck.

And three people!