Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory Review

By Kristan Reed Published 8 April, 2005

Even your mum could play it. In theory.

Version tested: PC

Order yours now from Simply Games.

There's a running joke/truism in the music scene that most bands suffer from the 'difficult' third album syndrome. It's not exactly a hard and fast rule (as there are some notable contradictions), but it's usually the point when previously unassailable success starts to unravel and the cracks start to show. Call it overconfidence, lack of inspiration, the well of creativity running dry, or just trying to play to the crowd, but Chaos Theory is Splinter Cell's Be Here Now.

Three steps forward, four steps back, "Choas Theory" (that's honestly how Ubisoft has spelled it on the spine of our promo copy) is the frustrating tale of a project that's added so much good stuff to a winning formula, but walked silently away from addressing some of the real issues that have dogged the series right from the beginning, while also introducing some new features that either add very little or actually detract from what made the game so compelling in the first place. Has Ubisoft genuinely disappointed, or are these the words of someone who expected too much? That's for you to decide.

The real follow up

'Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory' Screenshot 1

But first a refresher. Chaos Theory is the 'true' sequel to the original 2002 stealth romp, or in other words it's the second Ubisoft Montreal Splinter Cell game - last year's Pandora Tomorrow being largely considered something of a filler release knocked up at Ubi's Shanghai studio to make the most of the commercial fervour surrounding the debut classic. On that basis, this interesting, almost unique state of affairs put Pandora Tomorrow into context. It was creatively no more than an expansion pack in single player terms, being little more than a set of new levels and scenarios to service the fans, while also justifying its full price tag with a rip roaring online multiplayer mode that was widely acknowledged as one of the true innovations in multiplayer gaming of recent years.

With all this in mind, the stage was set for Chaos Theory to really advance on what had gone before; improve on the storytelling, provide a more rounded, more inclusive gameplay experience (i.e. one that didn't kill the player off every 30 seconds or checkpoint your progress with a sliver of health left), crank up the already grand visual opulence, throw in a few new cool Third Echelon gadgets and give the ageing Clooney wannabe the chance to show us his new rubber perv suit and the new moves he's been learning down at the self defence class since last time out.

Unlike SC's closest competitor Metal Gear Solid, the storyline's never been the game's strong point. While MGS mastermind Hideo Kojima might harbour delusions of grandeur in that department and go too far in wanting to make grand sweeping movies with Harry Gregson-Williams soundtracks alongside his games, at least he's trying to push things forward. Ubisoft Montreal is still floundering very much in the malaise of old school videogame pre-mission thinking. It's evidently trying manfully to create a convincing, focused game world with characters the player cares about, but it's still not working. Content to continue with the formula of stitching together fast-paced news footage, quickfire biogs on generic arch crims and knockabout banter between Sam and his Third Echelon employers, Chaos Theory still fails to truly engage the player in setting the scene, or giving you a clear definition of your goals or why you're chasing so and so, and what his role in the crime caper is. It's easy to lose the thread of what's going on, and while that may be at least partly to do with a failing attention span, it's a problem Ubi still hasn't addressed beyond retaining its high quality voice cast and doing an admirable lip-synching job on its main characters. Following up its cut-scenes with static text descriptions of what's going on feels plain lazy these days.

Splinter Sell or Splinter Smell?

'Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory' Screenshot 2

Where Chaos Theory gets things right in terms of scene-setting is the actual in-game banter, which - tedious quipping about Sam's increasingly mature years aside - really help give you a sense of place, as well as regular reminders of why you're doing what you're doing. It's a game that really needs it too, as most of your time with Chaos Theory will simply be a matter of engaging with easy-to-pick-off generic goons that patrol in near darkness in easy-to-manage ones and twos.

A typical sortie in Chaos Theory's ten levels goes roughly like this: insertion in some random dark place of great beauty and great danger, turn on night vision in order to see anything (being sure to shoot out any lightbulbs you come across), crouch and sneak up slowly behind stationary or slow moving guard, grab him, interrogate, incapacitate, save game.

Or, if you can't be bothered with the slow and sure process of sneaking up behind people the newly enhanced close combat manoeuvres make the job of taking out guards easier than ever. Too easy, in fact. Anyone familiar with previous Sam Fisher adventures will probably be aghast at how straightforward the whole procession is; especially with a 'quicksave anywhere' facility replacing the far more challenging and sensible checkpoint system. Kill, save. Kill, save. Kill, save. And so on.

More forgiving than Jesus

'Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory' Screenshot 3

There's forgiving, and then there's just ridiculous. It was obvious some of the more frustrating elements and difficulty spikes had to be smoothed out to give people more incentive to carry on, but now everything's such a formality (the new knife attacks a prime example of making things too easy) it's hard to really care. If you mess up, you just quick load and carry on and all that rich tension of old just melts away.

Even if you happen to alert a guard while they're busily unloading their clip into your face, Mr Fisher has the incredible ability to knock out literally any game enemy with one swift blow no matter what anyone else is doing to him at the time. Amazing. While Ubi has gone to great lengths to introduce some exceptionally cool new moves that enable Sam, for example, to dangle off ledges and yank enemies to their doom (off the top of the Light House - genius), or hang from pipes and perform an inverted neck break on enemies unfortunate enough to wander underneath him, you either rarely get the chance to pull such things off, or you settle into the rapid realisation that, actually, it's far easier and more effective to knee your foe in the bollocks or slap your extended palm under their chin. After all, as gamers we generally take the most effective option when presented, right?

As such, your guns are more of a hindrance than a help at times, often alerting swathes of guards to your presence and resulting in a very quick death indeed. In fact, while we're on the subject, you'll be regularly gob-smacked at just how quickly enemies react to your creeping presence - one second engaged in any number of tasks from urinating to fixing locks, and the next millisecond unloading their gun with military precision - yet when patrolling a dark area they rarely have the presence of mind to light up the scene.

I believe in a thing called lightbulbs

'Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory' Screenshot 4

It's probably at this latter point where you find yourself tiring of the whole darkness mechanic. It was a huge step forward in the first Splinter Cell, and creeping around in the dark playing hide and seek was a real buzz, but now the whole game relies on it to such an extent that it's laughable. Even the most mundane scenarios and locations are so dark and so obviously contrived around the central game mechanic that it ceases to be believable anymore. Factor in odd game design decisions that have now abandoned key Splinter Cell principles like not leaving any bodies lying around and not triggering more than three alarms and it's a game that - while more accessible - is dumbed down to the point of disinterest. Once you realise there's no punishment for leaving dead bodies where you killed them or any real incentive to avoid setting off alarms you stop playing the game with the same degree of skill that you once did. It leaves you with a lack of achievement, a lack of challenge and as such feels very much inferior to previous games in the series. Apart from the fairly challenging bomb defusal section on the standout penultimate Bathhouse level, the game's just a fairly tired romp mainly involving taking out dozens of dumb guards, hacking doors, checking every computer under the sun and so on until you're done.

And yet there are plenty of positive things to admire about the game everywhere you look; things which have rightly been trumpeted to get people excited about the game in the run up to launch. On a visual level it's impossible not to admire the superb animation that really makes Fisher one of the most satisfying game characters to control that there has ever been. In terms of the sheer control responsiveness and range of movements it's just spot on and a lesson to anyone hoping to make an action game (particular thumbs up to the new aim-switching ability that now lets you choose whether to aim over one shoulder or the other).

Fisher is one of the only game characters who looks like he's physically interacting with the environment, rather than having just been plonked into it, so huge kudos there. Okay, so maybe the character models still have an overly plastic look about them still, but the movement and level of realistic motion capture is a sight to behold and something that Ubi has over most of its competitors. Again, the actual game engine is streets ahead of most of the current crop of action adventures, with the PC version in particular capable of some outstanding texture detail, beautiful lighting and particle effects; it's just a shame that most of the time it's too dark to show it off in its full glory.

Enjoy your stay

'Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory' Screenshot 5

As a whole, it's certainly a game world you'll really enjoy occupying (although what's with the Airwaves ads for gawd's sake?). The environments really drip with atmosphere at times, with some occasionally inspired soundtrack dramatics designed to give you the fear blasting into action. The diverting paths also help give the gamer a degree of choice, which is always good to see, but it's arguably undercooked in that respect, with some hilariously contrived crawl spaces inserted in the unlikeliest of places - just to give the player a supposedly 'sneaky' shortcut, when it would have been more useful and convincing to design levels more around Fisher's athletic abilities. All too rarely does the player really get the chance to use their full repertoire of impressive moves - the split jump, the pipe hanging, the rappelling and so on - and all too often we're left crawling through stupid air ducts instead that simply wouldn't exist in real life. Is it us or do these things only seem to exist in the minds of movie and games designers? It's probably become the biggest gaming cliché of all.

Another undercooked element of the 'new' Splinter Cell is its more 'mature' content, which seems to consist of Sam being able to hold a knife to the throat of his enemies, but never have the ability to go the whole hog and use it in this situation. You can, of course, slash your foes and stab them in the gut when not using your guns but but nevertheless we wanted Fisher to be meaner, more aggressive, and give the enemy a real taste of their own medicine. Ultimately he's just too damned nice most of the time.

So what of the celebrated multiplayer? For some players it might even be the main event, especially in the light of the newly implemented co-op mode; but like nearly all multiplayer experiences it's one that depends as much on how good your assistants are as the game itself. Set over four levels, the co-op mode essentially sticks to the same principles as the main single-player campaign, but designs the level in such a way that you can work together to use moves that enable you to get into areas you otherwise wouldn't be able to on your own. The most obviously useful one is the Boost, which allows you to boost your team-mate up to a ledge or pipe. Others such as the Human Ladder let a player hanging on a ledge act as mean to climb up, while the Long Jump is an odd but cool one that lets you throw your team mate towards a target, such as an NPC and knock them out in the process.

Hungover?

'Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory' Screenshot 6

Other contextual moves such as co-op Dual Rappelling and standing on a team-mate's shoulders are pretty useful when the occasion arises, but probably the best of all is the Hang Over, which has one player controlling a rope while the other has the opportunity to be dangled over an NPC to perform the deadly inverted neck break.

But as cool as all this sounds, the reality of co-op is two of you wandering around looking for the next place to go, and if you lose each other it can be a faff trying to co-ordinate each others plans ("I'm over by the vent" "Which one? Where?"), especially given the absence of a map to gauge where they are. Given that it's something of an added extra tacked onto the main event, it's hardly surprising to note that out of the four levels, only one of them can be considered a worthy addition. In the main these levels feel quite empty and after a while you'll quickly want to move back onto the main versus multiplayer mode.

If you're one of the many that enjoyed what Pandora Tomorrow's maps had to offer then you'll be right at home here, with the same maps returning here in addition to some new ones. Once again it's two on two action; two spies (the Sam Fishers, effectively) against two Mercenaries, with the latter playing from a first-person perspective, being slower paced and having machine guns and torches, but minus the athletic stealth abilities of the spies. If you haven't tried it, it's one of the most brilliantly balanced multiplayer experiences around, albeit one that you can only really start to enjoy once you get to know each of the vast, sprawling maps intimately and know their weaknesses. Until then, you'll probably get a bit annoyed with how rubbish you are at it.

A distraction from the main event

'Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory' Screenshot 7

The main thing to note is how Chaos Theory has basically moulded the various multiplayer strands of old into a more coherent story mode. In other words, different objectives are tied together in a sequential list of tasks to be performed; so, for example, you might need to steal/protect a hard drive from a server, set or defuse a demolition charge on a server or neutralise/protect a particular terminal. It's not really a 'story' as such, but it just mixes things up a bit more and means you're doing more than simply the one task. On top of that there's the standard deathmatch between the Shadownet Spies and the Argus PMC, or a Disc Hunt mode, which if you hadn't guessed already is CTF in Fisher's world, so all in all, lots to do, plenty of value all round and doubtlessly hours of entertainment for those of you who enjoy your online gaming - but be aware that as many people that love SC's multiplayer, there are an equal number of braying types that don't get on with it.

A small word of caution, though. We're slightly baffled why (on the PC version at least) Ubi couldn't be bothered to keep the key-mapping consistent between the single and multiplayer modes. How hard can it be? Also, don't expect the visual quality of the single-player mode to appear in multiplayer - it's two entirely different teams responsible for both, and as such the engine appears to be a few years behind for some inexplicable reason.

Once you factor all of these distinct strands of the package together there's definitely a lot to commend and a lot of enjoyment to be had. But our overriding concern is for the main event, the single-player mode. This is arguably what most people buy Splinter Cell games for, and it seems that in attempting to take the series forward Ubi has neutered the experience to pacify those lacking the patience to play it the way it had to be played in the early days. As such, the bottom line for us is that it has morphed into a dumbed-down experience that is no longer anywhere near as gripping and compelling as it once was, and while the multiplayer does bail out the overall value of the package to a large extent, it can't mask the decline elsewhere. We reckon we could probably see the point of what Ubisoft was trying to achieve with Chaos Theory, but we'd need night vision goggles for that. Maybe next time the series can go back to its roots and keep the long-term fans happy as well, eh? It's still an eight, but only just.

Order yours now from Simply Games.

8 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (69) Latest comment 6 years ago

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

  • drumbaby #1 7 years ago

    So no DMC 3 review yet?

    :)

  • fireclown #2 7 years ago

    It does get more fun once you realise you're penalised on the mission rating for knocking guards unconscious, and penalised more for killing them. So if you want a 100% rating you have to ghost through without ever getting into a fight. Which is always the funnest way to play stealth games.

    /nod to most of the review tho

  • MikeD #3 7 years ago

    Good review.

    Though I assume that the console versions lack the quicksave? That's how it was in 1 and PT, if I remember correctly.

    When I heard about the changes, like more open levels, I had hoped it would have been a bit of a mix between the original splinter cell and hitman. Apparently not.

  • Captain Fetid #4 7 years ago

    I didn't expect an 8 after reading the whole review...

    A rental for me it is; knowing myself I'll barely finish 2 levels, but at least I'll know whether a purchase is warranted.

    I fear my frustration over the AI will remain.

  • krudster #5 7 years ago

    Xbox has quicksave, no idea about PS2.

  • O-Fox #6 7 years ago

    Online co-op really pushes this up to a 9 for me - but, with all online games, I suppose the sort of experience you have with it depends solely on who you are playing it with, but I've had tons of fun.
    Will have to dissagree on the comments on the story and characterisiation there though - the quality of writing, if a little too rife with self referential quips, has definately improved tenfold in Chaos Theory, and banter between both the guards, Sam and Lambert has some really memorable moments.

  • TheDifficult3rdAlbum #7 7 years ago


    Bless. As loyal reader, its nice to get a personal mention in reviews occasionally.

    /realises it's not actually about me at all
    /shakes fist

  • BeDevil #8 7 years ago

    Bugger, was hoping this would be an improvement over the last, with much more chance to perform the moves [split jump especially].... also was hoping for some more cool levels like the speeding train from PT.

    BTW, does Sam stil glide down stairs, or have they managed to improved the animation here to match the rest of his movements? Even Angel of Darkness had believable stairs interaction.

    Where's the XB Doom 3 review?

  • MikeD #9 7 years ago

    Oh yeah, whose 3rd album is 'be here now'?

    Vague pop references, blegh!

  • UncleLou #10 7 years ago

    Bloody hell, I disagree entirely with the review (regarding the single player part). I was bored to tears with Pandora Tomorrow, but absolutely love Chaos Theory. Much better AI, much better level design, and hiding (uncconscious) bodies, for example, makeas a lot sense as otherwise his colleagues will wake him up if they find him.

    I am also glad they got rid of the silly "3 alarms" design. It feels a lot more natural and real now. The whole game gives you a lot more freedom how to solve things - nothing keeps you from playing it as skillful as you like.

    Really, nearly everything criticised in the review is a change for the better in my opinion. :)

    CT restored my faith in the series which was shattered after PT.

  • O-Fox #11 7 years ago

    you could hide the bodies in both previous splinter cell games, lou

  • Spike3 #12 7 years ago

    Also, contrary to the review, you actually can kill guards with the knife. Just walk up to them without the pistol or sc2k equipped and press right trigger. Fisher will either slash them across the throat, or grab them by the shoulder and knife them in the gut :)

  • UncleLou #13 7 years ago

    you could hide the bodies in both previous splinter cell games, lou

    Um, yes, I know, but the review says hiding bodies makes no sense anymore. With which I disagree. :)

  • O-Fox #14 7 years ago

    ah ok, my mistake

  • jumpdeveraux #15 7 years ago

    Reads like a 7 ...

  • krudster #16 7 years ago

    As I spelled out. Still, surely this is basic design philosophy, no?

  • krudster #17 7 years ago

    Unclelou, hiding bodies isn't anywhere near the big factor it used to be.

  • AtomicBanana #18 7 years ago

    Completely Disagree about the single player. The changes made are *perfect*

    The save system? It's something called willpower ;) You don't have to save very 5 seconds. Things not affecting mission completion? They do if you want a 100% rating. They've managed to make the game more accessable to new players while at the same time the challange is still there for those experinced players.

    The knife 'knee in the bollocks' move ... I don't see what ure problem with this is. In the older games there was nothing more annoying than sneaking up behind someone, making a slight mistake and them turning round leaving you unable to do anything but try to stuipidly run away or use that useless 'slap' on them. Now if they do it, you have a solution. Perfect :]

  • NAC #19 7 years ago

    Whats up with the wall hugging and shooting in CT?
    Did they take it out?. Or am I losing it.
    Edited by 1 at 08/04/05 @ 14:01

  • MikeD #20 7 years ago

    To be able to truly believe the stunning new visual engine ; yes, you do need a PC with a Nvidia NV40 card to be able to enjoy the HDR Tonemapping effects. Otherwise, you're missing out really. Normal Maps and specular lighting are also more precise and feature more fidelity than on Xbox. High end PC HDR Chaos Theory graphics deserve the full 10 out of 10.

    This is exactly why it should be rated down more. Fucking assholes catering to nvidia cards only while ATI cards can do this effect just as well (as a soon to arrive halflife 2 patch will prove).

    Way to alienate 50% of the enthusiast pc gamers, ubisoft!

  • Eighthours #21 7 years ago

    This read like a 7 all the way through. But I think the reviewer realised the inevitable "So, as good as FIFA Street then?" comments that would have littered this page!!

    By the way, it's a 9 easily on Xbox.

  • prettyboytim #22 7 years ago

    Is there splitscreen co-op on the Xbox version? I heard it got left out?

    Edit: I played the PC demo - fun, although I couldn't play it very far because it kept crashing. I did like the stabbing move - very pleasing not to have to get around behind someone to do it.
    Edited by 1 at 08/04/05 @ 14:13

  • UncleLou #23 7 years ago

    Unclelou, hiding bodies isn't anywhere near the big factor it used to be.


    Yes, but that's because they got rid of the silly "game over" mechanics. It's not as essential anymore, but it helps a lot.

  • Universal_Hamster #24 7 years ago

    Poor review, sorry. For one, I was expecting a 5 at the end, not an eight, and critisizes the game for unrealistic cliches that are in every other stealth game.
    I didnt enjoy either of the other SC games, but this is really high up on my "games of the year" list. The level design is so much better than 1&2, the new moves empower the player, meaning you dont have to be in mortal terror of every single guard in the game, as previously. The new quicksave takes away the challenge a little, yes, but only as much as you want it to, and most importantly, it surgically removes the frustration that ultimately ruined 1&2 for me. Kick ass soundtrack too.
    I do agree that the story is badly told, but no worse than the previous games, and yeah, what the hell is going on with all the product placement? I nearly switched it off during the intro because of the airwaves advert.

  • AtomicBanana #25 7 years ago

    Is there splitscreen co-op on the Xbox version? I heard it got left out?

    Yes, it's still there.. works like a charm :)

  • krudster #26 7 years ago

    Bleh, you can finish every single mission without hiding anyone's body. I call that dumbing it down and making you care less about what's going on. It's still enjoyable, but all the palm sweating tension's drained out of this game, sorry if that offends anyone.

  • Kingsadist #27 7 years ago

    While it feels refreshing to see a more insightfull and critical review of a massively-praised game, it looks slightly silly in that Eurogamer seems to lack facts, or at least enough insight.

    Playing the game as stealthily as possible on Extreme (meaning, going for a 100% score each time) is certainly not easy, but its not really hard either. And THAT is the true problem with SCCT's difficulty; even the most challenging section becomes a thing of ease because of its over-forgiveness. [SPOILERS] Take the Bathhouse-level mentioned in the review, for example. At the end, one has to face off against three mercenaries before proceeding to a mechanics-room to disarm bombs. However, facing these guards is wholly unnecessary when you realise you can just throw a flashbang and run past them; they won't even follow you. So even bottlenecks become childsplay at the drop of a hat, or the click of a button; even knocking out opponent becomes essentially useless when you figure out the multitude of ways to get around them unnoticed and unharmed, which makes the whole knife-wielding a pathetic attempt to divert our attention from the actual lack of gameplay.

    Something which I feel is the main problem of SCCT, is that fact that its still, mostly, linear. I felt that the more open-ended approach was very promising, but poorly executed, with the Lighthouse being perhaps the best approach. A sandbox-style gameplay setting, with a huge map for Sam to explore, without set paths (say like the versus maps) would have given the player a much wider and better experience. While a game like SC needs focus, it also needs to evolve if it wants to keep from being stale.

    Still, that said, I feel the campaign is pretty good, with a few stand-out levels (I loved the bank-level) and some really tense brain-wreckers you will encounter when you'll play the game going for 100%.
    I was more alarmed by how bad the co-op works on PC.
    Edited by 1 at 08/04/05 @ 14:24

  • krudster #28 7 years ago

    Sick and elitist scumbag here. Just wanted to clarify; the knife comment was specifically relating to the inabilty to slit people's throats when you grab them. It's made more explicit in the text what I was talking about.

  • MikeD #29 7 years ago

    Somebody stepped in dogshit when climbing out of the wrong side of his miner's bed!

    edit: hehe, too late.
    Edited by 1 at 08/04/05 @ 14:36

  • Teeth #30 7 years ago

    n00b! ;)

    edit - double too late!
    Edited by 1 at 08/04/05 @ 14:38

  • krudster #31 7 years ago

    Trouble is, Miner, you end up making a game that's nothing like the original vision. If all you're doing is making a game to appeal to the casual audience, then job done, but Eurogamer isn't really a forum for the views of the casual gamer is it?

  • Feanor #32 7 years ago

    Maybe Ubi should have to let you pick a save system at the start - either Quick Saving or a Checkpoint system. Checkpoint systems are fine in theory but too often there simply aren't enough checkpoints to make the system work in practice. RE 4 had a perfect checkpoint system, but not many other games do.

  • MikeP #33 7 years ago

    Like UncleLou I really didn't get on with PT, but I really like Chaos Theory. The balance of the game feels more like an interactive action movie.

    It's certainly more accessible than the first Splinter Cell. I think the first installment got a lot of slack in reviews as it was pretty original in its mechanic, despite being tooth-grindingly frustating at times.

    CT makes stealth-action fun, rather than a recipe for a heart attack and controller destruction. And it's all the better for it, I reckon. But then I wouldn't class myself as one of the "hardcore" (whatever that really means), despite being an avid EG reader.
    Edited by 2 at 08/04/05 @ 15:00

  • MikeD #34 7 years ago

    Hear hear, krudster.

    I certainly don't come here to read how much this might appeal to Joe Jack-a-lot of surree street.

    For me one of the main principles of a stealth game is that it has to be a challenge. Otherwise the tension and excitement are completely lacking. The hitman series went the wrong way with too many compromises and it sounds like this is too.

    There should be an easy mode for people who want to breeze through. But other modes should be a challenge. It's ridiculous to choose extreme on your first go through. (just like hitman 2's hardest difficulty was the same difficulty as normal on hitman 1. Preposterous)

  • MikeP #35 7 years ago

    Heh, nemesis returns, MikeD : )

  • AtomicBanana #36 7 years ago

    There should be an easy mode for people who want to breeze through. But other modes should be a challenge. It's ridiculous to choose extreme on your first go through. (just like hitman 2's hardest difficulty was the same difficulty as normal on hitman 1. Preposterous)

    I really don't see how? You both get what you want?

  • MikeD #37 7 years ago

    I really don't see how? You both get what you want?

    If that was the only flaw Hitman 2 had, yes :-)

    But no, actually. if they had announced: hardest diffculty is the one to play it at, then I would have known. I had played through 3 levels before starting over.

    (Thief 3 another stealth game which is only a challenge if you go for the hardest difficulty. Normal should be a challenge, not easy. that's what easy is for)

  • Darren #38 7 years ago

    Although I agree with score, I don't agree with everything the reviewer has said about the game.

    Sure, having a save anywhere system makes the game easier, but you don't have to use it. Although I've been mainly playing the PC version with it's superior graphics, I noticed that the Xbox version still saves at checkpoints anyway so if you don't like the new save system you can still play it the old way. Criticising a game because it offers you more choice is silly. At least, Ubi Soft have addressed one of the games main criticisms, the fact that if you're caught you have to constantly repeated large sections of gameplay over and over again.

    Chaos Theory, in my opinion, has corrected all the faults and annoyances of the earlier games and is far more enjoyable to play. Put it this way, I got frustrated and bored with first two games single player modes but I can't stop playing Chaos Theory...

  • Putty-Man #39 7 years ago

    Just for the record Krudster, what qualifies one as a 'hardcore gamer'?

    I read the Eurogamer boards all the time (and enjoy them) but I'm not sure if I'm hardcore enough for them now.

  • krudster #40 7 years ago

    I don't write to rehash what I think the popular opinion might be, this is just a typically honest account of how I got on with the game. Sure it's less frustrating, and sure I don't have to use quick save, but the bollocks have been chopped off CT.

  • Putty-Man #41 7 years ago

    Fully appreciate your stance on reviewing big name, supposed AAA titles Krudster. Its refreshing to read what someone actually thinks, instead of what they think they should think.

    And I don't want to start an off-topic sway here.I was actually refering to your comment from a previous post:

    "Eurogamer isn't really a forum for the views of the casual gamer is it?"

    Edited by 1 at 08/04/05 @ 15:58

  • krudster #42 7 years ago

    To me, I still had a lot of fun, but the real fun I got out of 1 and 2 was the almost unbearable tension from knowing some bits are all or nothing. This was like Splinter Cell on autopilot. If that somehow makes it better and that this style of game appeals to less patient or less tolerant gamers then good for you. I'm just stating my well worn personal preference.

  • Feanor #43 7 years ago

    Quote from krudster's 8/10 review of Pandora Tomorrow:

    "Sometimes the amount you enjoy a videogame is directly proportional to your ability to tolerate acute levels of frustration. One game almost specifically designed to test Fisher's smash-o-meter calibration is undoubtedly Ubisoft's pseudo-sequel to Splinter Cell."

    In both reviews he's clearly explained how the game plays, and how much he personally enjoyed it. If you truly hate being frustrated and don't mind a Quick Save system then just add a point to the Chaos Theory score in your head, just as you could have deducted a point or two from the Pandora Tomorrow score if re-doing large sections of games drives you crazy. Simple, really.
    Edited by 2 at 08/04/05 @ 16:45

  • krudster #44 7 years ago

    Quite. What he said.

  • UncleLou #45 7 years ago

    Sounds to me like you played it on the PC for the first time, krudster.

    I don't find this game any easier or harder than its predecessors. granted, I've always played the PC versions with the "save anywhere" function, but apart from that, there is not much difference in the difficulty setting.

    I certainly didn't give up on PT because it was too hard.

    I also find it remarkable that you call the AI "dumb". I find it is dramatically improved, and certainly the best in the genre I've seen yet. The developers must be frustrated as hell if they read this. The improvements in this area were for me the most noticeable, more so than the improved graphics or other details.

    The AI once you're in a shootout is better than in most first person shooters (with enemies taking cover, searching for a better cover if they still get hit, calling reinforcements), and the "patrol" AI is better than in Sc 1+2 and Thief combined.

  • lemonfist #46 7 years ago

    You know, I almost didn't notice this review, because the front page just kept screaming: "HALF-LIFE HALF-LIFE HALF-LIFE"

  • krudster #47 7 years ago

    Yes UncleLou, I did play this on the PC for the first time, but the Xbox version I did first impressions of was just the same, quicksave and all, and I feared for the game in that account. I don't think the PC observation is relevant to me, but I'd suggest that previous check point based console versions were far harder than the PC versions. I recall PC owners saying how easy PT was, and it wasn't like that for me at all.

  • Tweakmonkey #48 7 years ago

    Sequels carry a lot of expectation, and I reckon some people think that adding new features always makes an improvement. But sometimes it just doesn't.

    This is my opinion but in general I find most sequels are by the numbers and usually the brilliance of the original can never be recreated a second (or third) time. I for one won't be buying this.

  • Ali #49 7 years ago

    Surely it's 'Second Album Syndrome' and not third?

    And now back to the review...

  • Royal Fool #50 7 years ago

    I'd give the game an eight tops. If it wasn't so drop-dead gorgeous it'd get a 6. The gameplay is really too easy at points, and the knife is a rather silly addition to help people along. Why not remove the knife on expert? Why is the AI still rather dumb?

  • AtomicBanana #51 7 years ago

    Why not remove the knife on expert? Why is the AI still rather dumb?

    Why use it if you're on expert and you want 100% rating?

    I personally thought the AI was much better this time round, sure they aren't gonna win any chess matches any time soon.. but I had to unlearn a lot of the really cheap tactics I could get away with in the other games.

  • kentmonkey #52 7 years ago

    Apologies in advance, this is a long one. Also Mr Beautiful might not appreciate it.....but then he's probably too busy looking in the mirror.

    "With all this in mind, the stage was set for Chaos Theory to really advance on what had gone before; improve on the storytelling, provide a more rounded, more inclusive gameplay experience (i.e. one that didn't kill the player off every 30 seconds or checkpoint your progress with a sliver of health left)."

    I might be miss-reading the above quote but to me, it sounds as though you were making a statement that said that Ubisoft should make the gameplay more inclusive by not killing the player off every few seconds but then raised that as quite a major negative in the review? Might be the way I've read it but that's the way it looked to me.

    Other than that, good review. Don't "agree" with the majority of the negative comments, as what you have seen as negatives, I like many others here, have seen as positives, but the review was well written enough for me to be able to see that I disagreed with your opinion & that Chaos Theory is finally a Splinter Cell game that I might actually find more enjoying than frustrating.

    I don't think our tastes are very much alike, & I do have to admit that you sometimes seem to have a rather unique gaming taste that can be quite different to the majority, but that doesn't mean it's wrong. I disagreed with this review & the FIFA Street review, but still think that they were well written enough for me to know that from reading them. I'd rather have someones honest opinion (as long as it is well expressed so I can see where I disagree with the reviewer) rather than the rubbish that GamesMaster/PLAY write where they try to guess how the crowd are going to react to the game & when they get it horribly wrong, they then slate a game they gave 90 in the previous issue & call it one of the worst games they have ever played (how many times did that happen with Angel of Darkness!)

    Have to disagree though with the quicksave comment. In fact I would have to disagree with anybody that considered that a negative point.

    The thing is that checkpoint systems actually put me off playing some games. Why? Well because some nights, I only get 20-30 minutes to sit down & enjoy a game & in some games, that's not enough to reach a checkpoint. So instead of risking my precious 20-30 mins on a game that I might not be able to save my progress in, I choose another one off the shelf that allows me to save when I want.

    Also when you can save anywhere, it gives you freedom to do it how much you want. If you want to save every 5 mins, you can. If you just want to save after particularly hard bits, you can. Me, I like to save after about 10-15 mins to save me having to backtrack too far & get too bored & also after really boring or frustrating bits. I don't necessarily save after difficult parts, as I don't mind playing those again if they were enjoyable, but I don't want to have to play through bits again that I hated or were frustrating. Where's the enjoyment?

    I just fail to see where a quicksave option is ever a bad thing. It gives the player choice, we always go on about being allowed to have more choice with regards to the way in which we tackle ingame situations, or even choose which path we want to take, why can't we have the choice of when to save?
    Edited by 1 at 08/04/05 @ 19:30

  • Feanor #53 7 years ago

    Eurogamer's reviews were one of the main reasons I never seriously considered getting the first two Splinter Cells since I knew the repeating-of-large-sections-over-and-over stuff would drive me mad. I liked the demo, so I'll probably pick up Chaos Theory once I can get a used copy for US $30 or $40.

  • kentmonkey #54 7 years ago

    Also, Mr Beautiful, I didn't actually see many if any people defending Kristan. I saw a couple of people defending his review but not him.

    It's fine to disagree with people, I disagreed with Kristan in the Fifa Street review & I got a friendly reply. The problem is some (only some, most on here today have been pleasant) of the people on here disagree with such an attitude that they are asking for an agressive response.

    I think you'll find that those people who disagree with valid points, don't resort to calling the reviewer a joke or resort to personal insults, generally get constructive responses & respect from the other users & writers of the site. It's when people start getting personal and acting like immature chavs that the abuse starts to fly & the "regs" (i've not been here long enough to call myself a reg) start to speak out.

    My two penneth.......

  • The-Bodybuilder #55 7 years ago

    >"Funny you didn't mark Half Life 2 down for using quicksave."

    Because (apparently) HL2 is the messiah of all games.

  • Vin #56 7 years ago

    Fifa Street's the better game, then?

    ;p

  • bivith #57 7 years ago

    "Srange, i looked at this 10 minutes ago, and after my first comment some-one had posted a comment agreeing with what i said, about Eurogamer being overly negative, but that's now disappeared. Why would this be? Has it been removed? "

    I've had negative (to Eurogamer) comments removed, too. It seems they don't like criticism.
    Edited by 2 at 08/04/05 @ 22:59

  • Cyhwuhx #58 7 years ago

    .::: Is this a bad time to mention that enemies STILL don't notice those three gigantic lightbulbs on your forehead? And it's the third installment already! ;) I bet they call this game realistic as well. :p

  • drks #59 7 years ago

    they aren't lightbulbs!

    and they're only visible so you can see where you are in the dark.


    this game is excellent btw. sure it's not TEH HARDCORE 1337 of the first 2 - i liked the first one but got frustrated with it, and the second was just crap - but it's much much better for it. it makes stealth games fun!

  • kentmonkey #60 7 years ago

    As I said, no problem with making negative comments whatsoever. I actually agree with the majority of what you have written with regards to things that you have seen as positives which are the same as those that Kristan has seen as negatives. No problem with "Freedom of speech" either. But I'm sure that doesn't mean that people can or should be rude when they disagree. A little courtesy never goes amiss anywhere in life. I've agreed with half of the people who've disagreed & their comments are valid. It's when they start slagging people off or getting personal. No need.

    Also, I feel that the game was reviewed "properly". In fact the review was very well written. Sure I disagreed with a lot of it but I still think it was reviewed well, the fact I disagree is personal opinion. Surely what you mean is, give it to another EG reviewer who'll give it a score that you agree with.
    Edited by 2 at 09/04/05 @ 10:25

  • kentmonkey #61 7 years ago

    To me though, if people simply "can't resist" quicksaving, that's a fault with the person, not the game! The option is there for you to save when you want, if people choose to do it every 5 seconds & therefore ruin the game experience, that's their problem.

    I can't see a situation where quicksaving can be blamed. It's your choice. With checkpointing, that can be blamed, due to being too infrequent or saving at a point when you have bugger all health left or no bullets when you're just about to go into a room with 100's of enemies.

    I just personally can't see the problem with quicksaving, only the many benefits. In an ideal world we'd be offered both at the start of the game, but when games can't even offer Widescreen half of the time, I doubt we'll ever get that!

  • MikeD #62 7 years ago

    But if you are one of those people that doesn't let quicksave ruin a game for him, why would not having quicksave be a bad thing?

    It can increase the ultimate enjoyment for those with weaker wills, while ultimately changing nothing for those with strong wills. As long as the checkpoint, or whatever, system is done in a way that it minimises frustration I don't see the need for quicksave. (good system might be the hitman one. Allow many saves for thoseplaying on easy, few saves on normal, no saves on hard. Without changing the difficulty of the actual game all that much)

    There is nothing inherently wrong with offering quicksave. But as bad as it sounds somethimes it's better to give people less choice to make sure they don't make the wrong one. :-)

    Just trying to look at the other side of the coin, btw. Personally I hardly ever quickload, so it doesn't matter to me.
    Edited by 1 at 09/04/05 @ 22:15

  • kentmonkey #63 7 years ago

    Good argument MikeD.

    I suppose for me, the quicksave system gives me the opportunity to play a game for 15-20 minutes if that's all I have on that particular evening & not worry about not having to save. I've had so many games where you've had to have at least double that to ensure that you have an oportunity to save. I like Halo's system, that worked well, frequent checkpoints, but then you get the problem whereby it saves just when you've got 1% energy left & 1 bullet for the pistol, coming up against a hunter in the next room.

    Think I'll start a thread in the forum to discuss this as it's not only relevant to Splinter Cell & I don't want to turn the game discussion into a quicksave discussion.

  • Darren #64 7 years ago

    I think that people who whinge about the game being too easy because you can quicksave, simply lack the willpower to resist using it; they are basically being selfish.

    Practically every PC game has a quicksave feature yet I don't seem to recall that being cited as a game flaw. In fact, on the PC a game WITHOUT quicksave is usually criticised!!!

    If the first Splinter Cell game had had quicksave too then we wouldn't even be having this discussion at all.

    Ubi Soft addressed all the criticisms of the earlier games, including the lack of save points, and in the process actually improved the game in my opinion. It's now enjoyable and less frustrating to play...

  • oerhoert #65 7 years ago

    "The "Game Over" screen is a relic of the past and sooner or later it IS going to be removed..."

    How can you win if you can't lose?

  • novotique #66 7 years ago

    Just had an idea (I know, my head hurts):

    Why don't game developers put an option in the game options to disable/enable quick saves?

    A+

  • kentmonkey #67 7 years ago

    Errr, ManicMiner, just want to check you've understood my post as I don't think you have. My whole post was about having quicksaves & that they do not, in my opinion, cause a problem. It is the gamer who can not resist doing it when they do not want to. I was not saying that saving every 5 seconds is a problem for everybody, I was replying to a specific poster who was saying that saving every few minutes causes them a problem. I was therefore pointing out that the problem was with them doing it & not the system, they could actually save as often or as little as they wanted to.

  • Lothar Hex #68 7 years ago

    After picking this up for only £24.99, it seems that Chaos Theory is design forpeople like me. Who though the first 2 games were great but were crap at doing some of the harder stealth bits. As such I'm enjoying the single player of Chaos Theory a lot more than I did the previous games.

  • albundy #69 6 years ago

    The reviewer is nuts! 10/10 for me!!!