Things took an interesting turn in the fourth installment of the popular stealth series. Not all of them were particularly great either. One notable thing about Double Agent is that it came out around that time that console generations were switching over. As a result, two different versions of the game were developed - one for the Playstation 2/XBox generation, and another for the PS3/XBox360. They're almost completely different. (For the sake of prosperity, I replayed both and will just discuss both here. Additionally, for clarity, I will simply refer to the versions as the "PS2 version" and the "XBox360 version.")
Obviously, the XBox360 version looks noticeably better. The graphics are greatly improved. The PS2 version does look a little better than previous PS2 Splinter Cell games, but it isn't as big a leap. This, of course, is due to the technical improvements of the console the former version was built for. However, being a better looking game does not make it a better game overall.
It's perhaps unsurprising that the PS2 version plays very similarly to the previous games. The controls are almost identical, which really helps for long time fans of the franchise. Though the series had been playing with things like natural lighting in their mission designs, darkness is still your best friend. Sticking to the shadows continues to be surest way to success on a mission. Grabbing guys can still be a bit clunky, relying on quickly tapping a menu option, but if you've played any other Splinter Cell game, you're already familiar with this. The XBox360 version doesn't really improve on this, however. Grabbing enemies still requires quickly tapping a menu; it just changes what the menu layout looks like.
The controls aren't radically different between the two versions, but there are a few alterations. The two that stuck out to me vary drastically in significance, though. First, how to open doors stealthy is changed. In all of the PS2 games, you select the "Open door stealth" option. Sam Fisher quietly turns the door knob, which then causes a second menu prompt that just says, "Open door." Essentially, you have to hit two menu options in a row. Not exactly the most streamline control scheme, but that's what you're used to. In the XBox360 version, it starts off the same. You select "Open door stealth" from the list of menu options when at a door. Except instead of hitting the second prompt, you move the left analog stick - the one responsible for character movement. To be fair, this system is better. Players can control the speed at which they open a door. You can glance around corners as you do so as well. The ultimate problem is that they never actually tell you that's how it works. If you're used to the other Splinter Cell games, then you may find yourself constantly bashing doors very loudly while meaning to open them in stealth mode. Apart from the fact that they never tell you how to quietly open doors, there's still a menu prompt after you select "Open door stealth." In the XBox360 version, the menus don't have words, instead being changed to pictures. Early in the game, you will likely find yourself selecting "Open door stealth," then immediately hitting "Bash door" next, because that prompt comes on screen.
So that might seem kind of petty, I know. It doesn't ultimately take long to figure out how it all works. It's just annoying to be left in the dark with how the game works, and having it result in a bunch of early game mistakes. The second change, I find, is much, much more detrimental. I'm admittedly not crazy about the redesign of the visibility meter. The PS2 version gets away from the typical meter (with darkness on the left and brightness on the right). Instead, it uses a photo of Fisher in gear that gets progressively more illuminated when in lights, and darker when in shadows. It can be a bit tricky figuring out how likely you are to be seen when you don't have a marker indicating where exactly you fall on the spectrum, but it's still - more or less - functionally the same as the meter in past games. You've also still got the sound meter, which is pretty much the same as well.
The XBox360 version uses a completely different system. Instead of giving you a visibility meter, it uses an oversimplified HUD system. Usually placed on Fisher's shoulder is a device that lights up one of three colors: green, yellow, and red. The basic idea is that when the light is green, you won't be seen. Light turns yellow, you're visible. Naturally, a red light means you've been spotted. This system is incredibly frustrating as it's nearly impossible to tell just how visible you actually are in a given moment. This light doesn't tell how visible you actually are; rather, it tells how likely you are to be seen. For an overwhelming majority of the game, you can't get out of the yellow, which essentially renders that indicator useless. Making matters worse, there's a sound cue that plays whenever it changes, which only helps so much when it goes off seemingly randomly sometimes. Plus, there's no sound meter or indicator at all, and some of the enemies have a supernatural level of hearing!
Perhaps making it worse is that the XBox360 version doesn't often give you the opportunity to use darkness to your advantage. You're constantly going on missions out in the middle of the daylight. There are maybe just two missions that actually take place at night. There are some moments of natural light in the PS2 version, of course, but it doesn't often build the level around it, allowing players to use Fisher the way we've been taught to use him for three entire games prior to this. Since there's a pretty good probability you're going to regularly be spotted and shot at more in the XBox360 version, they've also removed the health bar, replacing it with that traditional blood splatter/color fad HUD system popularized by the likes of Call of Duty or Gears of War. All of this gives this "updated version" more of a third person shooter feel than a stealth game.
You'll still have to sneak, of course. Not even the 360 version builds itself around running and gunning, even if it seems like that's what it wants you to do at times. It's just that the PS2 version has you sticking to the shadows and playing to your strengths, while the XBox360 version generally requires you be quick and hide behind things.
Both games are a shining example of how to not do your tutorials. The PS2 version kind of has one in the form of watchable videos in the opening mission. It doesn't exactly have you perform the action the way that the previous three did, nor do they give you a ton of room to practice what they just taught you. Video walkthroughs aren't the best way to handle teaching someone how to play the game, but at least it's something, and to advance in the video, you do at least have to press the button (which they seem to think is the same thing as having the player perform the action, but it's really not). For some reason, the XBox360 version foregoes a tutorial altogether. Yep, there are no tutorials in the campaign at all, which is actually kind of annoying because it plays very differently from the previous three. A lack of tutorial hurts both new fans jumping onto the franchise, as well as old fans who don't need the tutorial because they've played three games before. There is a separate "training" option from the Start Menu, but even that isn't particularly helpful. They teach you some stuff, but not everything. It's just weird that they chose to not even bother trying to integrate the tutorial into the game, like literally every game ever.
In terms of story, it's a mixed bag. Both have weaknesses and strengths over one another. The overall narrative is the same. After Sam Fisher's daughter is reported killed in a freak car accident, he spirals into depression and takes an extremely dangerous mission to infiltrate John Brown's Army, a terrorist organization based in New Orleans that has been popping up on Third Echelon's radar. Fisher must become - as the title suggests - a double agent, earning trust from the JBA, while retaining trust with the NSA, who is undergoing their own internal command issues. Sometimes, the player must make a choice that impacts who they gain trust from. For example, early on you're given the order from Emile Dusfraine - leader of the JBA - to kill Cole Yeager (who is either the pilot of a helicopter you stole or a member of the JBA plotting to take over the organization, depending on which version you play). The NSA expects you to not murder someone in cold blood, so depending on what you decide, you will either gain trust from the JBA while losing trust from the NSA, or you will lose trust from the JBA while gaining more from the NSA.
In terms of the choices, the PS2 version handles them a lot better. For starters, there is only one trust meter. The JBA sits on the left. NSA sits on the right. There's a sweet spot in the middle where you've got enough trust from both sides to continue. The nice thing about this system is that every bit of trust you earn from one side inherently removes trust from the other. Balancing this is actually a bit tricky, especially given that the choices aren't exactly presented as one of moral ambiguity. A lot of games feature choices in a pretty black and white, binary fashion. You've got the "good guy" option, and you've got the "bad guy" option. The morality here isn't blurry. The JBA will almost always ask you to do things that are clearly wrong on the ethical scale. Yet the game doesn't frame these as "moral choices." Instead, it pits the options against one another in terms of what you might need to do for the long term success of the mission. At one point, another double agent is found out, prompting Dusfraine to demand you kill him while Lambert orders you to help him escape. The moral choice is easy. Obviously, you help him. Except if you're anything like me, you haven't exactly done the best job balancing trust, and now you're in a position where saving the double agent could be too costly on that front. What's good for the mission is often what isn't morally right.
Of course, it doesn't help that eventually you realize the punishment for losing too much trust either way isn't that great. This fact undermines the interesting dynamic established by this choice system. Still, in many ways, it's better than how the XBox360 version handles it. There are optional objectives that earn you trust for either the JBA or NSA, but both organizations have separate bars. This means that you only gain or lose trust from one side at a time. When you fill your JBA bar, it doesn't come at the cost of the NSA. If you do all of your side objectives, it's actually kind of difficult to not have both meters filled for most of the game. You do lose trust with the JBA over little things like showing up late, but overall, you won't ever really find yourself pondering what to do for the sake of the mission. Some of the biggest choices aren't even actually choices either. That double agent you can help or kill in the PS2 version? Not an option in the XBox360 version. You have to help him. Trust be damned.
Though to be fair to the XBox360 version, they handle some of the narrative moments a lot better. Hisham, the double agent with blown cover, might not be a choice, but it makes sense. The PS2 version has you either kill him or help him. If you help him, you report back to Dusfraine that he's gone into hiding. In the XBox360 version, Fisher uses explosions to deceive the JBA leader, lying to him about the status of the traitor. (I actually wondered out loud why Fisher doesn't just lie to Dusfraine in the PS2 version, so it was nice to see that happen in the XBox360 one.) Similarly, there's an entire subplot with Enrica, a specialist of the JBA who Fisher kind of develops a thing for, in part because she's been doubting Dusfraine's tactics. This is handled a lot better in the XBox360 version, as Enrica is regularly involved on missions, acting as the JBA's version of Lambert and constantly speaking directives into Sam's ear. There's really only one mission in the PS2 edition that sees the two really interact with each other, and that happens very early on. So the finale wherein other Splinter Cells shoot her down against Fisher's comments, causing him to go rogue feels like it comes out of nowhere on PS2.
In past Splinter Cell reviews, I refer to the idea that the story starts going off the rails a little bit, resulting in an almost comic book-like story. That's at full force here. The entire subplot of Sarah Fisher is random and unnecessary to the world of Splinter Cell. Where the villains had been previously motivated by understandable geo-political or power hungry motives, the JBA is presented as little more than your typical, oversimplified, evil terrorist organization. Dusfraine and company sometimes suggest that their motivations are to stop a government that they find inherently corrupt. (That certainly would be the indication given they're named after John Brown.) Yet, it's completely unclear what exactly setting off three nukes in the US will do to "stick it to the government." Shoot, even the bastard Timothy McVeigh at least hit a federal government complex while nonchalantly murdering innocent people. It's a little unclear why Dusfraine wants to specifically blow up Los Angeles, New York, and Nashville (and not, you'll note, Washington DC, or even historically significant cities like Boston or Philadelphia).
Ultimately, they're presented with no complexities or actual motivations, at least, none that make any sense. It's not enough that blowing up that private cruise ship has virtually nothing to do with the US government. They're not "sticking it to them" or "making a point." It's not like Bane shooting up Wall Street in The Dark Knight Rises, full of any sort of thematic relevance. No, these people actively rejoice in killing innocent people who, with any shred of thought, they'd realize had nothing to do with anything. The Splinter Cell franchise isn't exactly noted for having great villains or anything, but the "bad guys" here are somehow even more shallow and pointless than ever.
While I thought the XBox360 version handled more story elements better, I ultimately couldn't stand playing it. The level designs and control schemes just make it feel completely unstable, with the latter often clashing with the former, making it unclear how the game wants you to think of this game and how to play it. Fisher operating out of the shadows isn't particularly fun, and it feels too different from the older games while trying to act like it's basically the same. (To their credit, Conviction succeeds by being unapologetic with how different it is from the original trilogy.)
This is not to say there's nothing good or promising in that shinier version. It has its moments. The missions at the JBA headquarters are an interesting idea. Every couple of missions, you wind up back at the JBA base. Certain members of the terrorist group ask you to do a bunch of things while Lambert radios you to issue new orders as well. You then get X-amount of time (usually 30 minutes) to roam around the base and complete the main objectives along with whatever optional ones you wish to. There are areas where you are free to walk openly, but most of your objectives take you into restricted areas where, if caught, you lose a substantial amount of trust. It can be a bit frustrating given that the map isn't exactly the best or easiest to read, but it's cool to essentially be given a laundry list of goals, then you have the freedom to do them as you see fit.
Still, there's no question in my mind that the PS2 version is the superior game overall. It's probably true that that older style of play couldn't go on much longer, and the change of pace brought in by Conviction was actually appreciated. But it succeeded by committing to a different style. The XBox360 version of Double Agent doesn't.
And of course, the story of Sam Fisher has officially, completely gone off the rails by the end of the game.
RATING: It's Fine (PS2 version) and Pretty Bad (XBox360 version)
(Ratings scale from worst to best: God Awful, Pretty Bad, It's Fine, Pretty Damn Good, Incredible!)
No comments:
Post a Comment