Splinter Cell Chaos Theory - Gamespot review

W

Wario64

works for Gamestop (lol)
8.6 (Xbox)

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/splintercell3/review.html

7.1 (PS2)
http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/action/splintercell3/review.html

"Splinter Cell Chaos Theory fulfills a lot of the previously untapped potential of its predecessors' single-player portions, while successfully extending the impressive multiplayer offerings of Pandora Tomorrow. It's got to be the most fully featured stealth action game to date, so if you like the idea of high-tech espionage, it's certainly going to have plenty to offer you. The game's different ingredients do seem as if they were cobbled together, though, and Chaos Theory ultimately could have benefited from a greater sense of cohesion. Yet, for whatever relatively slight shortcomings the game may have, this is a case of the sum of the parts amounting to a whole lot."
 
so levels are linear yet open ended with many paths to finish an objective?

the xbox review is a bit confusing accusign the game on not being cohesive?
 
Gamespot always confuse me. I've no problem with their harsher scoring scale, infact I like it as too many websites hand out 9+ scores to ever big game *cough*IGN*cough*. An 8.6 puts it on par with DMC3, which is more than fine by me. But they don't stick to thier harsh scoring scale enough. Just recently the 'slightly above average' Republic Commando got 8.7 which totally undermines their whole system in my opinion.
 
teh same reviewer gave splinter cell PT a 9.1 so he isnt biased but he seems to actually prefer the Alarm goes off mission over linear gamplay of the first games. He mentions that now you can be a bit careless with sam as if its a bad thing.
 
Kasavin said in his Chaos Theory review just now that it was "the most entertaining and well-rounded game in the series", then gave it an 8.6. He gave Pandora Tomorrow a 9.1 about a year ago.

Can I get a WWWWWWWTTTTTTTTFFFFFFFFFFF ???????/
 
Kabuki Waq said:
teh same reviewer gave splinter cell PT a 9.1 so he isnt biased but he seems to actually prefer the Alarm goes off mission over linear gamplay of the first games. He mentions that now you can be a bit careless with sam as if its a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I haven't played this game yet but I hope that it hasn't gotten too easy. This game is all about espionage and you are not supposed to be seen, or heard. I hope htey didn't dumb this down because people where whining that its too hard.
 
Gamespy 3/25/2005 5 out of 5 100.0%
1UP 3/25/2005 10 out of 10 100.0%
Official Xbox Magazine 4/1/2005 9.9 out of 10 99.0%
TeamXBOX 3/24/2005 9.8 out of 10 98.0%
Game Informer 4/1/2005 9.75 out of 10 97.5%
IGN 3/23/2005 9.6 out of 10 96.0%
Worth Playing 3/28/2005 9.6 out of 10 96.0%
Electronic Gaming Monthly 4/1/2005 9.5 out of 10 95.0%
Next Level Gaming 3/27/2005 95 out of 100 95.0%
Total Video Games 3/25/2005 9 out of 10 90.0%
GamePro 5/1/2005 4.5 out of 5 90.0%
Yahoo! Games 3/28/2005 9 out of 10 90.0%
GameSpot 3/28/2005 8.6 out of 10 86.0%

I don't doubt his integrity but Greg and the Splinter Cell series have had an amusing relationship, especially the bru hah ha that resulted after he reviewed the 1st game. I sincerely hope it's not a traffic generator.
 
bill0527 said:
Kasavin said in his Chaos Theory review just now that it was "the most entertaining and well-rounded game in the series", then gave it an 8.6. He gave Pandora Tomorrow a 9.1 about a year ago.

Can I get a WWWWWWWTTTTTTTTFFFFFFFFFFF ???????/
Click to expand...
Because that was a year ago.

Fuck.
 
Mr Gump said:
Because that was a year ago.

Fuck.
Click to expand...


He says there is a pretty big jump in quality especially with the solo campaign. The scored is decent but how can he say the game is linear and then claim it to be really open ended?
 
I didn't read it but the graphics score of 9, is this one of those best graphics ever but there's a foot that clips the wall on the 3rd level near the boiler room thingys? The graphics in the demo looked amazing.
 
Kabuki Waq said:
He says there is a pretty big jump in quality especially with the solo campaign. The scored is decent but how can he say the game is linear and then claim it to be really open ended?
Click to expand...

because this is greg kasavin! The dude who reviewed Amped after playing only 2 levels!
 
Revenue must be down this month at Gamespot. No better way to bring in traffic and increase the hit count than by doing this. It happened last month also with DMC3. 2 of the very best games on each respective system get shitcanned from AWESOME to just GOOD.
 
bill0527 said:
Please provide me with your insights on the overscoring now that you've played the finished game.
Click to expand...


Yeah I know.... I'm too lazy to find a rolls eyes smilies icon right now but if I wasn't there would be a huge one right here.
 
I haven't even read Greg's review, but I also scored CT slightly lower than PT (PT 9.5, CT 9.0) despite agreeing that CT is the better game.

A couple reasons why:

When PT came out, the multiplayer was revolutionary, and I absolutely loved it. It was reason enough to buy the game as far as I was concerned--a total blast to play, and there was -nothing else like it-. That earns points with me. CT's multiplayer, while fantastic and improved over PTs, is only an incremental step up. This was probably the biggest reason for the score 'drop'--the co-op in CT kicks ass, but it's not quite the achievement multiplayer in PT was, for me anyway.

Also, the general bar for graphics and gameplay did raise a bit...2004 was one hell of a year for gaming.

Finally, I actually think coming out so soon after PT had something less tangible to do with it. Although every part of the game felt a bit improved, it did just feel like a bit, maybe because I felt like I had played something so similar so recently.

Long story short: If you liked PT, buy this game. If you only liked multiplayer, buy this game. If you only play single player, and felt let down by PT, buy this game. If you never played SC and want to try the best one, buy this game. If...well, you get the idea.
 
Considering the quality of the XBOX version vs. the PS2 and GC (if we're to believe the hearsay), it had might as well be exclusive...

I'm sure the PC version will be decent, though. At least I hope it is, or I'm fucked.
 
sp0rsk said:
still stands.


is there anything xbox you wont defend.
Click to expand...

No it doesnt stand. You were wrong and you dont even have the "internet balls" to admit it.

As for your question, yes.
 
bill0527 said:
Kasavin said in his Chaos Theory review just now that it was "the most entertaining and well-rounded game in the series", then gave it an 8.6. He gave Pandora Tomorrow a 9.1 about a year ago.

Can I get a WWWWWWWTTTTTTTTFFFFFFFFFFF ???????/
Click to expand...


well its more of the same isn't it. Better but unimproved makes sense I guess. I don't like Splinter Cell. Zzzz
 
Ryudo said:
No it doesnt stand. You were wrong and you dont even have the "internet balls" to admit it.

As for your question, yes.
Click to expand...


ha? i asked the question cause i know your an xbot, you know as well as i do that you could give a shit about the ps2 version of this game.
 
sp0rsk said:
ha? i asked the question cause i know your an xbot, you know as well as i do that you could give a shit about the ps2 version of this game.
Click to expand...

I dont give a shit about the xbox version either. I have a X800XT and an AMD FX chip for gods sake.

Me an xbot ? pretty much, although GT4 and RE4 are my favourite games atm and they arent on xbox.
 
Ryudo said:
I dont give a shit about the xbox version either. I have a X800XT and an AMD FX chip for gods sake.

Me an xbot ? pretty much, although GT4 and RE4 are my favourite games atm and they arent on xbox.
Click to expand...


well ill be!
 
MarkMacD said:
I haven't even read Greg's review, but I also scored CT slightly lower than PT (PT 9.5, CT 9.0) despite agreeing that CT is the better game.

A couple reasons why:

When PT came out, the multiplayer was revolutionary, and I absolutely loved it. It was reason enough to buy the game as far as I was concerned--a total blast to play, and there was -nothing else like it-. That earns points with me. CT's multiplayer, while fantastic and improved over PTs, is only an incremental step up. This was probably the biggest reason for the score 'drop'--the co-op in CT kicks ass, but it's not quite the achievement multiplayer in PT was, for me anyway.

Also, the general bar for graphics and gameplay did raise a bit...2004 was one hell of a year for gaming.

Finally, I actually think coming out so soon after PT had something less tangible to do with it. Although every part of the game felt a bit improved, it did just feel like a bit, maybe because I felt like I had played something so similar so recently.

Long story short: If you liked PT, buy this game. If you only liked multiplayer, buy this game. If you only play single player, and felt let down by PT, buy this game. If you never played SC and want to try the best one, buy this game. If...well, you get the idea.
Click to expand...


well said, I just get the feeling the conspiracy theorists are going to ignore your post.
 
bill0527 said:
Please provide me with your insights on the overscoring now that you've played the finished game.
Click to expand...


I don't have to play it as I already played through SC and PT. It's the same fucking overhyped yet hacked to hell multiplayer mode that will be ruined after a month plus some halfway decent co-op missions tacked onto a slightly better single player mode. If you think this is worth a 10 great go salivate at all the glowing reviews but I've found them extremely fishy. Especially when I've read some reviews stating the game has now famous UBI bugs in them.
 
Greg Kasavin is and has been the worst reviewer of video games this generation. There has been nobody else out there who so consistently contradicts themselves in their own reviews as him. Nobody with more "what the fuck's" and nobody even remotely close that their scores are so far off of their review's (praise a game and score it low, berate a game and score it high). Not to mention obvious things like when he gives a game like the one he reviews here, which has easily hands fucking down the best graphics a game has ever seen and give it a 9 for graphics, then finds some shitty looking game and scores it a 10 in graphics.

The dude is just generally a big dumbfuck who could not be any more clueless. His reviews consist of playing a couple levels (cough: Amped 1,2) and then he sits down for a half hour and spits out the first thing that comes to mind and writes all his tripe down and calls it a review.

He has been proven to be wrong on so many occasions that it boggles the mind why any of us ever consider anything he writes any more.

I have no problem with any game getting a low score. Hell, I'm on record for not liking Splinter Cell in any way shape or form other than the amazing graphics, but reading a review from dipshit Kasavin is fun just to see him fuck it up so much.

I also wonder why on earth, he always makes sure he reviews games in a series he doesn't like. It's like he wants to make sure his bullshit hatred of a series gets out there for all to read. Especially when it's a high profile game. Would you see him making sure he reviews a game in a series he doesn't like if it was a 'nobody heard of it' game? Of course not.
 
shpankey said:
Greg Kasavin is and has been the worst reviewer of video games this generation. There has been nobody else out there who so consistently contradicts themselves in their own reviews as him. Nobody with more "what the fuck's" and nobody even remotely close that their scores are so far off of their review's (praise a game and score it low, berate a game and score it high). Not to mention obvious things like when he gives a game like the one he reviews here, which has easily hands fucking down the best graphics a game has ever seen and give it a 9 for graphics, then finds some shitty looking game and scores it a 10 in graphics.

The dude is just generally a big dumbfuck who could not be any more clueless. His reviews consist of playing a couple levels (cough: Amped 1,2) and then he sits down for a half hour and spits out the first thing that comes to mind and writes all his tripe down and calls it a review.

He has been proven to be wrong on so many occasions that it boggles the mind why any of us ever consider anything he writes any more.

I have no problem with any game getting a low score. Hell, I'm on record for not liking Splinter Cell in any way shape or form other than the amazing graphics, but reading a review from dipshit Kasavin is fun just to see him fuck it up so much.

I also wonder why on earth, he always makes sure he reviews games in a series he doesn't like. It's like he wants to make sure his bullshit hatred of a series gets out there for all to read. Especially when it's a high profile game. Would you see him making sure he reviews a game in a series he doesn't like if it was a 'nobody heard of it' game? Of course not.
Click to expand...

Wow... :lol :lol
 
Mrbob said:
Finally, a fair review score for SC:CT. Game has been getting overscored.
Click to expand...

I agree

the AI is still dumb as a rock and the enemy animation is really awful..

the enemy AI and bad animation destroy the "reality" feeling the game is supposed to have..

I you like the other SC though. you´ll love this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Splinter Cell: Deathwatch Trailer
2
59
1K
EverydayBeast replied
Splinter Cell Chaos Theory is probably top 10 games ever made right?
Opinion  2
84
5K
genesisblock replied
Question about splinter cell
49
3K
Hudo replied
Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow Gets A Surprise Steam Release And Is Just Playable On The Steam Deck
News Platform 
31
671
Gonzito replied
Jason Schreier: Ubisoft SF was working on Splinter Cell; it got derailed by GaaS ambitions and became xDefiant
Opinion Rumor Game Dev 
34
340
EDMIX replied
Top Bottom