Mission: Impossible - Operation Surma Review

Operation: Make a Splinter Cell clone.

Version tested: PlayStation 2

Picture, if you will, the boardroom tussles between Paradigm Entertainment and Atari. The stony-faced Atari exec deadpans over a mahogany table, fully 30 feet across the sterile, blacked out air-conditioned nightmare. "Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to play Splinter Cell, copy its gameplay, mission structure, animation, look and feel and deliver us a game allows us to make use of the expensive Mission Impossible licence we've acquired."

"Roger that, sir" the Paradigm exec nods, "with Tom Cruise on board we'll have a game to truly maximise the revenue potential of such an established franchise."

"No dice" spits Mr Atari. "Cruise wasn't part of the deal - you have to make a generic version of Ethan Hunt - but makes sure he's an exceptionally competent agent in peak physical condition, motivated by a desire for justice and a passion for danger. Oh, and he's a master of impersonation. He's so convincing you'd be sure it was Cruise, right there on your screen, barking at you for focusing too much on his big beak."

"But, but, you managed to get Arnie for Terminator 3 and Will Smith's bird for Enter The Matrix. How come we've get the shitty end of the stick?"

"That's classified information. I'm not at liberty to discuss these matters with you," Mr Atari barks sternly, and exits the room, flanked by bulldozer bodyguards.

And with that our Paradigm exec shuffles off stealthily into the stark concrete night, mindful of the strict brief to nuzzle up to Sam Fisher for a few months and begin the process of moulding an M:I game around Ubisoft's successful hide and sneak formula.

Georgulariaslavistan

'Mission: Impossible - Operation Surma' Screenshot 1

Fast forward to the present day and we have in our hands the finished box copy of M:I - Operation Surma on Xbox - a game so shrouded in secrecy that no other publication in the world has even reviewed it yet, always a telling sign of a publisher's total lack of confidence in the relative merits of a product. But unlike the frankly despicable Rise of the Machines, these well-founded fears over Atari's latest movie-related disaster-to-be are dispelled within a matter of minutes in the company of this respectable, albeit by-the-numbers stealth action title.

As you'd perhaps expect for a title that shamelessly borrows rather than innovates, the whole premise is typically stereotypical in a damn-those-pesky-Eastern-Europeans kind of way. Kicking off with a battle against a shady organisation known as SURMA, the operation commences in (no giggling at the back) Yulgaria, with our IMF hero Ethan Hawke, sorry, Hunt, tasked with saving the Western world from having its weapons secrets pinched by the sneaky Ice Worm computer virus.

Soon SURMA realises its plot is being compromised and so the game quickly develops into a high tech covert tussle between good and evil aided and abetted by your hacking cohort Luther Stickell, who provides the mission updates and technical backup, while the buccaneering Billy Baird also chips in when the stakes are high.

The initial impressions of being a Splinter Cell clone are well founded from the off; Hunt moves just like Fisher, has an almost identical repertoire of moves to Fisher, while the hide-in-the-dark guard whacking, computer hacking, security system disabling gameplay is similarly hewn from the same exacting, stubborn rock as the Ubisoft classic. Don't come around these parts looking for new ideas, fair adventurer.

An expert in repetition

'Mission: Impossible - Operation Surma' Screenshot 2

As you might expect for a game that prides itself on being covert, it's a given that you're going to have to tolerate messing things up. It's a job requirement that you'll spend a great deal of time replaying the same sections over and over again until you work out the guard paths, the camera layouts, the positions of the switches and the correct usage of the various gadgets. All the usual boxes are checked, and on that basis it comes across as a solid attempt to shoehorn the M:I brand into the ever-popular stealth action genre. For those with a short attention span or a tendency to get pissed off with gameplay repetition, it's fair to say that this won't be for you, but if you warm to sneak fests and enjoy a solid slice of steady-paced stealth foolery, it has a fair bit going for it.

Any stealth game worth its bandanas has an array of sneaky gadgets, and Operation Surma offers a few genre staples to deliver a sense of familiarity, along with a few of its own for good measure. Within the first portion of the first level you're basically given a quick tutorial with all of them, with the Tranq Gun perhaps the most essential staple in your arsenal. Like any dart gun, it incapacitates many an irritating foe in seconds and is guaranteed to get you out of many a scrape, as stealth attacks aren't always possible when you're legging it and attempting to reset yet another tripped alarm.

Almost as crucial is the Electronic Warfare Gun, a gun that fires out camera disabling darts, as well as allowing you to track an enemy's position. Other standard gadgets include the Laser Cutter, which allows you to carve your way through certain doors, the Micro Cord, a winch-firing marvel that allows you to pull yourself up to handily placed pipes, sneak through otherwise impassable areas and perform overhead stealth attacks on unwary guards, as well as the Remote Camera Viewer (check out those security camera feeds), the Sonic Imager (see through doors and walls), Digital Binoculars (zoom in on enemies, listen in on their conversations, upload pictures for disguises, and so on), as well as the obligatory night vision and lock pick.

Yes! Something it's better than Splinter Cell at!

'Mission: Impossible - Operation Surma' Screenshot 3

The control set up makes it a relative doddle to cycle through the available commands on the D-pad, with all the relevant commands sensibly mapped and easily accessible. Unlike the original Splinter Cell, you won't be all fingers and thumbs while you work out which obscure combination to pull off.

The basic game design is fairly solid until you come across some of the more irritating flaws that regularly crop up and bar your progress. In the main, the game follows a set framework to abide by - disable the cameras, take out the patrolling sentries, hack computer X, move onto next area. But in just about every single section of the game there's one exceptionally minor stumbling block that crops up to frustrate the life out of you. If it's not a camera that you've yet to discover, or an obscure switch you haven't chanced upon, it's that there's a particular object you haven't spotted yet.

The main problem is the mission briefings and objectives, which are at best vague, and at worst totally unhelpful. While it makes the gameplay quite open ended (i.e. you don't have to take out all the cameras to progress, but it helps), the upshot is that you'll regularly spend ages just wandering around like a headless chicken clicking on every part of the scenery in the vain hope that it does something useful. On one occasion, we were stuck for well over an hour before we finally realised there was a part of the scenery we could use our Micro Cord on. In other games it would be patently obvious what to do, but so often Operation Surma gives the vaguest clues and has you convinced half the time that the game's bugged, when it transpires that it's just being unhelpful.

Caution: Explicit language

'Mission: Impossible - Operation Surma' Screenshot 4

We're not advocating the gaming equivalent of hand-holding by any means, but after about the seventh level you just get increasingly fed up with having to work around the designers' laziness and refusal to even drop the slightest hint as regards what to do. For example, on the latter part of the second mission you have to engage in the first trademark Mission: Impossible moment, getting one of those latex facial disguises and then winching yourself up to the ceiling to hack into a giant floor to ceiling computer, with 90 seconds to swing yourself into position and grab the data from five different drives.

Initially it seems like a good movie-style moment, and exactly the kind of tension inducing moment. That is, until you're replaying the section for the 20th time, cursing the poor collision detection that refuses to acknowledge when you're lined up right in front of the exact drive and causes you to fail yet again. Of course, we managed it in the end, in the small hours of the night, but it didn't feel like fun, it just wound us up into a torrette tornado until we finally squeaked through to the next equally frustrating section. And as any weary gamer will note, there's only so many times you're prepared to be beaten over the head inexplicably before you hit the eject button for the last time and it goes back to the shop.

And not content with being a less exciting version of Splinter Cell, it compounds its inferiority by dressing the game up with a less than stellar graphics engine that can't hold a candle to Ubisoft's lighting extravaganza. The character models are certainly reasonably commendable with some decent animation and respectable detailing, but the environments lack anything approaching a next-gen sheen with bland texturing, an uninspiring colour scheme and an almost total lack of lighting and particle effects to help draw you in. Add to that some really basic AI routines that really make you appreciate the subtlety in Metal Gear and Splinter Cell, throw in the inanely-respawning-guard syndrome and you end up with a game that screams "Average!" from every pore.

Which makes our job a bit easier...

Operation Surma isn't a bad game by any means. A generation ago this would've been held up as a fine game, but it's been radically usurped in almost any area you care to mention, and in this day and age just slapping a licence on the front of the pack isn't enough to make it anywhere near interesting. Taking away the official element of real movie stars, exclusive clips and all the ballyhoo that hysterically surrounds these titles isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't help it either, especially when we've seen the likes of EA showing how it should be done recently. Another case of 'licenced game in mediocreshock', then. Thank goodness for 10-day returns policies, eh?

5 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy

Comments (37) Latest comment 8 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • ssuellid #1 8 years ago

    Very funny review - especially the lack of Tom Cruise bit.


    I'm getting rather bored of these stealth games. What I want is Splinter Cell with optional stealth and with more powerful weapons.

  • kalel #2 8 years ago

    1st!! yay!

    I mean second, boo!
    Edited by 1 at 04/12/03 @ 09:23
  • pjmaybe #3 8 years ago

    Holy crap, it really is a clone!

    Peej
  • bionutz #4 8 years ago

    Mission Impossible is not a one person adventure!!! It is a team thing, this is what made it reknown!
    One should do the action, the other take care of the cameras, the girl distracting the guards, etc. Just like in the series!
    This game has to wrong title, just as the movies MI and MI2 had. They were more or less james bond clones.
  • krudster #5 8 years ago

    You're quite right, the license is all monked up...
  • IronGiant #6 8 years ago

    Good review.. so if you like Splinter Cell just wait for the next one instead of wasting hard earned money on this. Another one for the bargain bin..
  • krudster #7 8 years ago

    It is the Xbox version, it was just mistagged.
  • IronGiant #8 8 years ago

    Yes i have played it and have no desire to play it again.. the coolest part of the game is having Ving Rhames in it, apart from that it's mediocre. As the review states it's following in the same footsteps as MGS2 and Splinter Cell but is nowhere near the standard of either.. graphics are average, the camera can be a right mess especially when you're climbing along pipes and need to see where to drop down safely, there is no feeling of tension even when the alarms go off, they give you a minute to find a panel to switch em off.. no guards come looking in the meantime even if theyre standing not far away.

    If you want an average Splinter Cell clone that doesnt look as good or play as well then by all means get it and you'll be happy.
  • renzo #9 8 years ago

    When is that Rogue Ops game coming out? Isn't that also supposed to be a Splinter Cell/MGS clone? Can't remember who was developing it... Bits or something.
  • Takashi #10 8 years ago

    Nice review.

    As for Tom Cruise, the man seemingly has refused to give his appearance in a video game ever since Top Gun, even when offered a considerable sum. I guess he's smarter than most of the current crop of artists.
  • Harry  #11 8 years ago

    "Matrix, terminator, MI - I know Infogrames purchased ocean but now it seems like they are becoming them"

    Actually, it was more like Ocean buying Infogrames. The reason that the name Infogrames name was kept was because they wanted to float on the French Stock Market and believed the French name would be better for doing so. As far as the movement of shares in the company goes – Ocean took hold of Infogrames.

    So, shit movie tie-ins…business as usual for Ocean. Seems nothing has changed in 20 years. :o)
  • redemption #12 8 years ago

    could someone tell me if this has the same restrictions/limitations of splinter cell, namely four rounds of ammunition and the inability to pick up foreign weaponry?

    i'm no stealth monkey, but if i ran out of ammo on assignment i'd pick up the dead guys gun. and hopefully i would have brought more than four rounds with me in the first place :)
  • krudster #13 8 years ago

    The lack of ammo never really seems a massive problem; if you do run out you can easiliy beat them up with a few mashes of the A button.
  • Feanor #14 8 years ago

    "Thank goodness for 10-day returns policies, eh?"

    You guys are lucky your games stores are dumb enough to still have that kind of policy in place.
  • bionutz #15 8 years ago

    Well, Feanor, I guess that implies some kind of honesty from our side as well.
  • redemption #16 8 years ago

    krudster, thanks for the response. one more if you have the time: are the environments expansive in the outdoor sense or do you spend most of your time corridor crawling?
  • krudster #17 8 years ago

    It's a mixture. The whole of the first level is outdoors with a never ending firework display. After that it's largely indoors.
  • redemption #18 8 years ago

  • bionutz #19 8 years ago

  • krudster #20 8 years ago

    Yeah yeah, heheh, we're all casual gamers, blah blah. Don't beat us up because you were the suckers that bought a 5/10 game.
  • 205gti #21 8 years ago

    I bet it still gets great User Reviews on Amazon....9/10 for MOH Rising Sun. Bless'em. If only they knew...
  • KungFu #22 8 years ago

    I'm with you Stilicho. MI:oS is actually way better than this review makes it out to be, and this isn't the first time EG have been way off the mark (Racing Evoluzione and World Racing spring to mind).

    Having been in this line of work myself I know first hand what it's being bombarded with game after game for review, ask Harry, we used to work together (shame on you Harry for judging a game based on one review! :)). I can tell you it's not easy sometimes, but one thing we made sure before reviewing was at least play the game to the end, regardless of how long after the release it was. Trying to get the review out on the release day (something EG have been guilty of all too often just recently) makes it all too plain to see that you skimmed over the game (that and the factual errors), and therefore your views cannot be trusted.

    It's just plain stupid to base future purchases on the scores of one site. Why not look at some other reviews, or even...*SHOCK*...try the game for yourself and form your own opinion! Cause isn't that the only opinion that counts?
  • Faust #23 8 years ago

    Certainly some of the reviews on this site are dodgy, but some are ok - LOTR: Return of the King was spot on, but their Club Football and T3 reviews leave a little to be desired...

    Reviews seem to depend on the reviewers mood rather than the game's merits usually ;)
  • IronGiant #24 8 years ago

    Well reading reviews is all about saving you the £40 or so it costs to "try the game for yourself" ... this game is average, some good moments but on the whole just average. Doesn't hold a candle to Splinter Cell or even Metal Gear Solid2 which it copies blatantly. Here's another review then, Gamesdomain gave it 6/10.
  • KungFu #25 8 years ago

    I think most people are aware of GAMEs 10 day returns policy so it is possible for anyone to try the game for themselves without risking 40 quid.

    As for reviews I find Game Ranking's review collation a better measure of how good a game is.
    Edited by 1 at 08/12/03 @ 20:15
  • krudster #26 8 years ago

    We can't expect to give an opinion on something and expect everyone to agree on that. It is, as we will always point out, just our opinion, not *fact*, but never, ever accuse us of being lazy and not bothering. FYI we played MI: OS for seven hours, and had to draw a line in the sand. Try finding a movie critic or a music reviewer that devoted the same time to evaluating a product. If you can't work out whether a game is good or not in that time then you shouldn't be in the business. Do you really think we have enough time to finish every single game we review? If we did that there would be about three reviews on the site per week, instead of 10.
  • elevenses #27 8 years ago

    Must say I'm with Krudster on this. An average gamer isnt going to play a game for 7 hours before they make a judgement on it. If its not overly enjoyable after that lenghth of time then its not going to get any better.
    Reviews are to a point sububjective and generalisations must be accepted - 1-4 crap. 5-7 average, 8-9 really good and then the mythical 10. a difference of 1 or even 2 marks is'nt that important really.
    As for quantity over quality I'm sure the staff at Eurogamer want to play games to completion to bring the most accurate reviews but if you've not enough staff then a balance must be reached and 7 hours seems areasonable amount of time. You pay 5 quid for most magazines which combined with their advertising brings in wages etc so they have the staff to complete games - EG doesnt charge.
    I've not always agreed with the reviews but thats to be expected of any arts media but the reviews are well written and all arguments are backed up. Just because you don't agree does'nt make it a bad review
  • redemption #28 8 years ago

    hired this last night, hoping that EG was wrong. it proved to be a mind-numbingly average experience. not a bad game in isolation, but when played against some recent purchases it pales in comparison.

    it's perhaps the sort of game that in a previous generation would have done well. distinctly average audio, average graphics and level design; with some truly hideous lighting effects.

    presentation is perhaps it's only redeeming feature. portrays the IMF world well and with character.

    NB i really can't get over the shoddy lighting effects, it's worth a rental just to view the comical light emission from streetlights. i only played a couple of hours in, but enough to ensure that krudster qualifies as sadomasochist in the extreme :)
  • KungFu #29 8 years ago

    "We can't expect to give an opinion on something and expect everyone to agree on that. It is, as we will always point out, just our opinion, not *fact*, but never, ever accuse us of being lazy and not bothering."

    I'm not saying everyone should agree with your opinion, I'm saying you should at least be knowledgeable in the subject of what you are writing about, and your reviews of late have not shown that. Sure film and music critics don't invest so much time in reviewing their own fields, their chosen medium is a lot shorter than your average videogame after all, but at least they sample the whole thing, not just the first ten minutes.

    I understand you are probably overworked (and no doubt underpaid), and as a result of that the copy you guys are producing is becoming poor.
  • krudster #30 8 years ago

    Kung Fu please stop talking such crap. Being knowledgable about a game and games in general doesn't rely on having completed it. Most games, as we all know, are about repetition. If there's a game out there that radically changes its mechanics after seven hours, then I'm not aware of it.
    If you really believe that an opinion is *only* valid if you've completed a game then you're a bigger fool than you already sound.

    SEVEN HOURS for Christ's sake, playing a game *anybody* could easily assess after two. Do you think we're mental?

    And to say our articles are becoming poor, well, fine, go and read another site then rather than posting contentious comments just because we don't agree with your view.

    MI is an average stealth game...repeat until death....

  • KungFu #31 8 years ago

    As I already said, the fact my opinion doesn't match yours isn't an issue, I'm an open minded guy, it makes little difference to me. My point is the site's reviews smack of limited play. How can someone trust your opinion based on you only playing a small portion of the game regardless of that repitition waffle you spouted? Would you trust someone reviewing a new album who only listened to the first 3 tracks? Nope. You can keep saying you played this game for seven hours until you are blue in the face, but the fact remains your reviews say otherwise.

    Y'know I would have let this pass me by if you hadn't been spouting crap to other people who dared to go against your opinion ("Don't beat us up because you were the suckers that bought a 5/10 game";). As Stilicho said - "If you're going to write a crap review, you have to take the flak that comes with it."

    Oh and I do read elsewhere, this site lost my trust soon after John left..which funnily enough is about the time you joined right?
  • Blerk #32 8 years ago

    Would you trust someone reviewing a new album who only listened to the first 3 tracks?

    If the first 3 tracks were utter shite... yes.
  • krudster #33 8 years ago

    Seriously Kung Fu, stop reading the site if you don't like it. None of us need this kind of nonsense spouted at us. We're fucking hard working guys with a huge passion for games, and if you can't see that then fine, leave.

    The fact my opinion on MI doesn't correlate with yours is neither here nor there (and a total non issue - seriously NO-ONE CARES), that's the nature of opinions. But slamming the review because you don't agree with the score seems pointless and childish. A 5/10 score means it was average - it had it's moments but was generally uninspired. It's not a total dismissal, which is what you seem to read into it.

    The sentiments of the review would have been the same regardless of whether I played it for 40 minutes or 40 hours, it's clearly a deeply average game, and I suspect many, if not all the reviews you read of this will state the same, having - most likely - played it for less than half the time.

    And if you're going to bring John into this, then frankly, you're the very definition of a trolling tard.
    Edited by 1 at 11/12/03 @ 13:56
  • KungFu #34 8 years ago

    So what's the difference between me bringing John into this and you slamming someone cause they don't agree with your opinion (lets not forget the name calling shall we)? The only difference I see is you can get away with it cause you work on the site. You've shown yourself to be a narrow minded and unprofessional. If the quality of the reviews hadn't put me off this site then you poor attitude would have. If you can stand the heat then you're in the wrong line of business.
    Edited by 1 at 11/12/03 @ 15:04
  • krudster #35 8 years ago

    Heh, I "slammed" them by calling them a "sucker" for paying £40 for a game worth no more than £10? Gosh, that must have hurt.

    If anyone's got an attitude problem, pal, it's you by relentlessly trolling about something no one *actually* gives a shit about, and constantly blethering on about the quality of our reviews.

    Like I said, if you want to go somewhere else and slag off free reviews of better quality then be my guest. You will not be missed, of that I am sure.
  • Big-Swiss #36 8 years ago

    lets hear some neurtal stuff: " peace"

    lets hear some other stuff: okay, for stilichos and guys like that, we all are guests on this site, hoping to gadder enough info, to decide what game we want to purchase and what game absolutley not and we are also hear just to chat around. so if you don't like what the rewievers here have to write, then simply get lost and shut up.

    this is my neutral opinion, lol
  • Big-Swiss #37 8 years ago

    PS: just emagine how boring my work would be if I couldn't appreciate the sarcasm of the site. And I'm not even mentioning how kind krudsters answers are, if you ask him something.