Fox's View on SC:Conviction

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Fox's View on SC:Conviction

Post by foxrock66(Roadkill) on Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:18 am

November 17, 2002. A little title known as "Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell" released to critical and commercial acclaim. It was lauded as redefining of the stealth genre. It quickly became a hit, and spawned three sequels of similar quality, each introducing new gameplay elements and gadgets.

On April 13, 2010, the oft delayed fifth installment of the series; subtitled "Conviction" dropped amidst much hype. High expectations were held for the new episode of the Splinter Cell saga that promised to once again redefine the stealth genre.

For the most part, it succeeds. This is not the Splinter Cell you remember. This time around, series' protagonist Sam Fisher has become one angry son-of-a-gun, and has no qualms about showing it.

In bringing action to forefront of this newest iteration of Splinter Cell, Ubi has successfully brought the adrenaline and visceral thrill of being an elite agent into the game. From a purely "Kick-Butt" perspective; Sam plays as he should. Now able to clear a room in a matter of seconds – thanks to the new Mark and Execute feature – and move at much faster speeds than before, Sam now behaves as a top agent should when faced with a situation that demands a bit of force.

Unfortunately, by bringing action to center stage, the stealth elements that Splinter Cell has always been known for have been all but removed. Sam can still hide in shadows, but this is typically only in short spaces between gunfights as you line up your targets. Sam has also somehow lost the ability to move bodies, choose whether he wants to use lethal or non-lethal force, and no longer has the majority of his gadgets – including series' trademark tri-focal goggles. While these omissions make sense - to a degree - within the context of the story, they are missed, and one can't help but notice the things that have been removed over what's been added. There's also a terrible level early on that's set in Iraq during the first Gulf War. This could have been interesting, but instead the level feels like a cheap, stripped-down third person shooter.

Another mark against the game is the fact that the foul language - which was present in previous games, but at a realistic level of frequency – has been cranked to eleven. Nearly everyone – even Sam – drops at least one f-bomb at some point or another, usually alongside numerous other profanities. The gratuitous amount of swearing in game detracts noticeably from any amount of realism to be found. It also makes your opponents seem like cheap street thugs when they're supposed to be highly trained soldiers.

The overall story is a bit lacking as well. While it does the job of moving the series' plot forward and there are a couple of interesting revelations, overall it feels a bit contrived and too similar to the Bourne saga.

This isn't to say the game has no good points. The Co-op modes have lots of replay value, and are a whole heck of a lot of fun. Also, as a pure action title, the game plays very well. It also has a great look to it – minus the fact that the screen drains of color when you're in shadow – and the action is satisfying. Had Ubi kept the majority of the stealth elements in, and simply added all the action gameplay as another choice in Sam's bag of tricks, the game would have had a lot more freedom and felt more like a Splinter Cell title.
It's a far cry from perfect, but it's still a lot of fun. While I miss the old style of gameplay, this is a nice change of pace. I only hope that the stealth elements become a bit more refined and are given as much care as the action in the next title.

Within reach of "classic" status, Conviction just doesn't quite get there. 7.5/10

_________________
http://theccp.forumotion.com




avatar
foxrock66(Roadkill)
Veteran
Veteran

Number of posts : 3164
Location : The Proud Durty South
Xfire? : foxrock66
Registration date : 2008-04-13

View user profile http://foxrock66.deviantart.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fox's View on SC:Conviction

Post by Çassús on Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:48 am

just saying..but you do get the goggles... and theyre alot more useful than in previous games

_________________
.

avatar
Çassús
Veteran
Veteran

Number of posts : 2152
Location : In west Philadelphia born and raised, On the playground where I spent most of my days..
Xfire? : Skitchcassus
Registration date : 2009-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Fox's View on SC:Conviction

Post by foxrock66(Roadkill) on Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:35 am

They aren't truly tri-focal, that's only their appearance. They're sonar,which makes them unrealistic and too powerful for my taste

_________________
http://theccp.forumotion.com




avatar
foxrock66(Roadkill)
Veteran
Veteran

Number of posts : 3164
Location : The Proud Durty South
Xfire? : foxrock66
Registration date : 2008-04-13

View user profile http://foxrock66.deviantart.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fox's View on SC:Conviction

Post by frang on Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:37 pm

So yer sayin playing Conviction is like playing Portal without the puzzles?

_________________


CCP has been alive for 3616 days.
Hellnurse: "CCP ain't a hotel or something! You can't join for a day."
avatar
frang
Veteran
Veteran

Number of posts : 2430
Location : USA
Xfire? : frangible
Registration date : 2009-03-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Fox's View on SC:Conviction

Post by Edge on Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:34 pm

Portal without puzzles is like a book without words or a cake without flour ^_^
@Fox The Bourne series is contrived? What gives you that impression?
I can certainly agree about the Tri-focal goggles and the stealth deprivation.
Metal Gear Solid has stayed much more true to the original.
avatar
Edge
Member
Member

Number of posts : 355
Location : That's what everyone asks me when I'm 1v1ing them.
Xfire? : rogue657
Registration date : 2010-05-07

View user profile http://cslgaming.webs.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fox's View on SC:Conviction

Post by foxrock66(Roadkill) on Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:07 pm

No, no. Bourne is not contrived, it was rather original. But, when you lift a bunch of stuff fom another story - as Conviction did with Bourne - the new story feels contrived. It felt like it was just an attempt to cash in on the "rogue agent on the run" story that's been so popular since Bourne came out. Even Quantum of Solace went that route

_________________
http://theccp.forumotion.com




avatar
foxrock66(Roadkill)
Veteran
Veteran

Number of posts : 3164
Location : The Proud Durty South
Xfire? : foxrock66
Registration date : 2008-04-13

View user profile http://foxrock66.deviantart.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Fox's View on SC:Conviction

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum