Splinter Cell: Double Agent Comments by Kristan Reed

That actually looks quite nice.

Chunky arms remind me of the gunshop owner from Resident Evil 2. Bizarrely!

Coming to the Cube too is it not?

Actually, it's the tight vest as well isn't it.

@ManicMiner - yup, you're right it was 2 on 2 and it was magnificent. My understanding is that it's now 3 on 3.

Yep, it was a brainfart. Twas 2 on 2. Amended.

Great captions.

Shooting him in the face might have been easier.

Easier... than tickling his chin?

there is far too many multiplayer previews nowadays

The accessibility thing is bang on. I tried Chaos Theory when I managed to buy it for £5, purely for the multiplayer. I stomached two games, the first was 'fine', I had some fun, but got completely abused at by people because I didn't really know what I was doing (I was trying! Just kept getting killed by the spys!).

The next game I tried elsewhere, and didn't get further than the lobby. I think someone had set the game up to have specific weapons, and by default it hadn't given them to me, so I tried for ages and ages to work out how I selected those weapons, and just gave up when all 3 of the other people kept shouting at me. :(

If they can just put a decent match making system in, that makes it as easy as Halo to play (and then be matched up with similar noobs) that would be fantastic for people like me.

*Everything I said above is from memory, from some time ago, so it might be slightly wrong. :)

Playing co-op with a mate was brilliant. Except that it kept kicking one or the other of us after about 15 minutes. If they can sort this out I'd buy it.

some of the very best, and some of the very worst, multiplayer experiences I've ever had involve the Splinter Cell versus. if you can get the right people, who know how to play, but also play it in the spirit it was intended, then it is absolutely awesome

Ubisofts games are notorious for bad multiplayer code. GRAW being another low point. Ubi games matchmaking systems usually suck, you get kicked out of servers all the time, there are way to many menuscreens which are also unclear as hell due to the fact that singleplayer and multiplayer are developed by totally different teams.

But their single greatest design flaw in Chaos Theory and GRAW?! Not being able to play ranked matches with friends. I mean WTF!! That's the whole point of 4v4 or 2v2 games.

Why do they think Halo 2 is still so popular! I will only start buying Ubi games again as soon as they fix this.

Thank you Nintendo. Thank you for this new culture of dumbed-down gaming, presented to us under the banner of "accessibility". I thought games were supposed to be all about skill? Why can't these cry baby n00bs just learn to play the game? Are we actively encouraging lowest common denominator laziness now? The solution to this 'problem' is simple. Instead of dumbing down the game, simply allow people to set up lobbies that are flagged for newcomers. That way, everyone goes in expecting certain players to a bit crap, and will be tolerant of their poorness. There, problem solved. There is absolutely no need to tone down what is a superbly engrossing, brain teasing multiplayer game, just so the more stupid among us can join in. Let them graft. Let them invest time to learn the maps. Learn them practice. And then I will deem them worthy of pity. But if they're going to just play for 5 minutes and moan "it's too haaaard!" then I feel nothing for them but contempt. Once again, thank you Nintendo.

Tosh. absolute tosh. So now, all videogames must be analagous to a My Little Tomy set, just so that plebs of our scoiety can avoid having to learn what, in comparison to maths and sciences, is a ridiculously easy concept to grasp, given enough effort and practice on the part of the player?

I myself am pretty average at Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory online. But the fun isn't in the winning, it's in the trying. And anyway, that's why it has a level cap, so that you can restrict your opponents to people of your own calibre, and give yourself a chance. It's really quite simple you know. Create a match, and stipulate that only levels 1 and 2 or whatever may enter. I do the same myself on Chaos Theory, Dead or Alive Ultimate, and any other game that wisely allows such an option.

Splinter Cell is a highly technical game, and that's why I love it. It's a simulation, it's authentic, it's cerebral. Why on Earth should it be made so that any fool can hop in for 5 minutes, and be competitive? Leave that sort of design decision to vapid crap like Nintedogs or something. I mean, what's next? Making Pro Evolution Soccer "accessible" to the average Fifa fan? I will go on a worldwide rampage of filth and fury if that ever happens.

In films, you have complicated arthouse films, which not everyone may get, but there's always Rush Hour for those looking for easy-to-follow scripts. Same goes for the music and book industry. But in the search for a quick buck, Microsoft and Sony, following Nintendo's Fool's Gold lead, want to see games lowered to their base form, just so they can get as many people playing as possible? Bah!

No room for elite games then, no? No room for skill? No room for accomplishment? Or is the industry now copying Blair's mantra with the public school system, that everyone should be a high achiever, whether merited or not? This move by UbiSoft sickens me. I never thought I'd see the day, that SPLINTER CELL would talk accessibility. Load of bollocks.

I can understand such moves being made on the Wii, a console that has been designed from the ground up to be capable of only the most basic controls. But why on the Xbox 360? I mean, we have Live Arcade for this sort of approach. If Virtua Fighter 5 happens to be online, don't dumb it down so that everyone can play. That's why Street Fighter II exists. Same goes for Pro Evolution Soccer 6. Can't the plebs just play Sensible soccer, whenever it's made available on the Arcade? If the Xbox 360 is going to roll with a two-tiered stratgey, then why must such talk start affecting traditionally cerebral games like Splinter Cell?

@albundy: You really don't do yourself any favours mate attacking Nintendo every fucking day. You're starting to sound like a broken record of a moronic rant. Even blackdog has been known to post something sensible on occasion.

"Why on Earth should it be made so that any fool can hop in for 5 minutes, and be competitive?"
Because Ubisoft want people to enjoy their games? If the game isn't new-player friendly you end up with only the guys like you with a stick up your ass playing it.

I'm average at Splinter Cell I said. But then, I don't try joining games with Level 2,3, 4 and 5 players, do I? I play according to my abilities, and if there are no games that limit the skill level sufficiently, I simple create my own to my own parameters, and wait for people to join. The end.

PS. I attacked Nintendo, because they specifically invented this stupid idea of ALL games being "accessible", even though not ALL films, books and CD's are "accessible". But I was also scathing in my loathing for UbiSoft's pandering to this agenda too. So don't be accusing me of targetting. I only criticise those that I don't agree with, and the day MS bring out a wishy washy wand controller, designed for the idiots of our land, I'm so defecting to the PlayStation 3.

Probably thee best multiplayer experience I have had. The only down fall I could find was the fact that playing as the merc was not as fun as spy. Man I loved playing that game! it was so much fun! I never found the menu system/game to be difficult, thought it was fairly easy tbh. I mean these gimps who found it hard must not of played the single player version because things like going through your equipment menu to find an item was part of the game, it made you find cover which made you vulnerable. This bullshit about marking out places you can go and routes you can take is another bullshit idea! What happened to exploring maps?

He he - great captions!

It's clearly a giant flaming cock.

It's clearly a giant flaming cock.

what, the caption or albundy? :)

PS. I attacked Nintendo, because they specifically invented this stupid idea of ALL games being "accessible"
No, people have wanted their games to be accessible for YEARS. Because the more accessible they are, the more people buy them. And besides, you attack Nintendo EVERY FUCKING DAY, EVEN IN UNRELATED THREADS. You've got a major chip on your shoulder and an even bigger stick up your ass. If you don't like games, don't buy them. If you do like the games, buy them. People aren't going to stop making the games they make now just because Nintendo doesn't want to purely cater to elitist people like yourself.

al - didn't you learn your lesson last time?

Tsk.

albundy's rep in this forum notwithstanding, I happen to agree with the general point he's making.

I think UbiSoft is an excellent publisher so I still have some faith that whatever accessibility they're building into the game won't completely spoil it for the rest of those who believe in challenges and overcoming them.

Being a pessimist, I also believe that Ubi will be a great publisher only until they get so large that they lose the flame and start pumping out steaming piles of shit. They're not there yet but I'm not holding my breath.

I forget his name but Ubi is what it is entirely due to the vision of its CEO/Founder. Sooner or later there will be a board revolution and they will kick him out and that will be the beginning of the end. They'll turn into another EA and the two of them will start slugging it out with me-too generic shite.

Enjoy Ubi while they last.

Ehm, sorry but I refuse to believe this. Especially in light of Moore's recent comments that Microsoft has realised that Live gaming is about you and your friends and not you and total strangers.

Furthermore, if Halo 3 will not have ranked teamplay options, I'll eat my hat. And my hat is a novelty sombrero.

And after I've eaten this hat, I'll swith to PC online gaming.

Ranked matches notwithstanding, Ubi's games still have crappy net code and server issues. And don't even get me starting on v-sync tearing in their games ;)

Slight update: I can understand not being able to invite friends into ranked, everyone for themselves matches, because that would cause rampant cheating. However, ranked teams do not, and this is what makes Halo 2 still the most popular Live game.

OK.

If you are in clan/team which is set up inside the title then you can play ranked CLAN games. In team based play which is not clan based, then you cannot invite your friends.

Halo 2 does this differently (to every other Xbox title) by allowing you to form a group and then enter matchmaking. Halo 2's online implentation is unique on Xbox.

Unique... and the best

Seriously, does Bungie have a patent on that shit or something. Why other devs don't copy this model (which is tailored to the more casual, online console environment) is beyond me.

you end up with only the guys like you with a stick up your ass playing it.

Hey!, whats wrong with having a stick up your arse? ;)

Unique... and the best

Doesn't Q4 have a similar system (dunno, only played the demo)? Or only the xb1? Anyway, it's the best system, on any platform. Other dev's should look into it yeh. I hope H3 will build on it.

Hang on... how is this article about Nintendo anyway?

btw... "dumbing down" = "making the game easy enough to use that it removes just one more bastion of intellectual superiority between us and the jocks who beat us up in high school"

Waaah waaaah, I want my games to be HARD to control, damnit! YOU'RE TAKING MY ELITE STATUS AWAY

That's just it though. Few games are 'hard' to control. The space shuttle is hard to control. A Ferrari 355F is hard to control. Your little brother is hard to control! But playing Halo is not, if you take two minutes to memorise what button does what, and then play for 5 minutes to put into practice what button does what. And only our increasingly stupid and lazy society could deem that it is.