Splinter Cell

edited April 2003 in Gaming

Comments

  • edited December 1969
    Whilst bored during Easter break, I began watching my sister playing Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell on her PSX2, and let's just say that for someone who is extremely unkeen on censorship of any form at all, I was disgusted.

    The heart of my issue is the story, or lack thereof, and the methods required to achieve the game's goals. Basically, your task is to go into various Evil Dudes'? facilities to prevent "something" from happening. To do this, you are required not to alert attention to yourself. Of course, we all know that the best way to do this is find enemy units who are facing the other way and head shotify them before they turn around and, maybe, see you.

    As you've probably gathered, the concept doesn't exactly warm with me. "See that guy over there? Kill him with one shot, fool. Then achieve the specious goals we only mention in the manual, which we hardly expect anyone to read, but is there so we don't get grilled by fundies." Ok, there are a few storyesque elements within the game, but they're simply colour, and do very little to justify the vital god given task.

    In addition to the poor basis for killing people who presumably have no idea you are there, the way the game play is dull as hell. Typical console style interactive movie fare. Sneak up on sucker, nullify his/her life, get the secret code, open the locked door, rinse, repeat*.

    I apologise to fans of the book, and Clancy's work in general, though feel the need to tell you all that his work hardly appeals to me, but can see that it would to a few groups of people.

    -Cob

    *C will take me to court for the "rinse, repeat" which I've stolen from the current poll on his great Site o' Fun. I await the lawsuit with baited breath. It'll beat the hell out of my current CS assignment. :)
  • edited December 1969
    Huh, that's odd

    I really enjoyed Splinter Cell. I played through it trying to kill as few people as possible. In fact I only recall one place in the game where it was absolutely necessary to kill someone to move forward.

    I found the sneaky game play to be a great change of pace from standard shooters, and the nonlethal tactics available to you to be much more fun than the hacking, slashing, puncturing, impaling, eviscerating and decapitating that goes on in most military-themed tactical video games.
  • edited December 1969
    mmmmm decapitating (nt) [nt]


  • edited December 1969
    Re: Huh, that's odd

    I really enjoyed Splinter Cell. I played through it trying to
    kill as few people as possible. In fact I only recall one place
    in the game where it was absolutely necessary to kill someone to
    move forward.

    Time to get back to fully researching something prior to slamming it, I guess. I'll have to play through the game myself and revise my thoughts.

    -Cob
  • edited December 1969
    Re: Huh, that's odd

    I really enjoyed Splinter Cell. I played through it trying to
    kill as few people as possible. In fact I only recall one place
    in the game where it was absolutely necessary to kill someone to
    move forward.

    I found the sneaky game play to be a great change of pace from
    standard shooters, and the nonlethal tactics available to you to
    be much more fun than the hacking, slashing, puncturing,
    impaling, eviscerating and decapitating that goes on in most
    military-themed tactical video games.

    Sounds similar to Deus Ex. You can choose to be stealthy and incapacitate rather than kill, or if you're a sick mofo, you can get all the explosives and heavy weapons you can and kill anything that moves.

    --
    Chief
  • edited December 1969
    Re: Splinter Cell

    Whilst bored during Easter break, I began watching my sister
    playing Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell on her PSX2, and let's just
    say that for someone who is extremely unkeen on censorship of
    any form at all, I was disgusted.

    The heart of my issue is the story, or lack thereof, and the
    methods required to achieve the game's goals. Basically, your
    task is to go into various Evil Dudes'? facilities to prevent
    "something" from happening. To do this, you are
    required not to alert attention to yourself. Of course, we all
    know that the best way to do this is find enemy units who are
    facing the other way and head shotify them before they turn
    around and, maybe, see you.

    As you've probably gathered, the concept doesn't exactly warm
    with me. "See that guy over there? Kill him with one shot,
    fool. Then achieve the specious goals we only mention in the
    manual, which we hardly expect anyone to read, but is there so
    we don't get grilled by fundies." Ok, there are a few
    storyesque elements within the game, but they're simply colour,
    and do very little to justify the vital god given task.

    In addition to the poor basis for killing people who presumably
    have no idea you are there, the way the game play is dull as
    hell. Typical console style interactive movie fare. Sneak up on
    sucker, nullify his/her life, get the secret code, open the
    locked door, rinse, repeat*.

    I apologise to fans of the book, and Clancy's work in general,
    though feel the need to tell you all that his work hardly
    appeals to me, but can see that it would to a few groups of
    people.

    -Cob

    *C will take me to court for the "rinse, repeat" which
    I've stolen from the current poll on his great Site o' Fun . I
    await the lawsuit with baited breath. It'll beat the hell out of
    my current CS assignment. :)

    There are a number of missions where you aren't allowed to kill anyone or it ends. For example, infiltrating the CIA (or some organization like that) to gather intelligence. Although, there's nothing like zooming in on the bad guys with the sniper scope. They are, after all, BAD GUYS.

    Marius

Sign In or Register to comment.