Splinter Cell promises “Stealth Action Redefined” and delivers it for the most part. Each environment reacts to the player’s noise levels, including surface-type walked on (a la Thief), and different lighting intensities. For example: the various shades of light between pitch black and broad day means the player will occasionally be forced to take some serious risks in the name of progress. Taking a moderately exposed path, while the enemy turns their back, builds panic as you rush forward to the sounds of guards muttering between them.

The sound across Splinter Cell is fantastic, but most enjoyable is the radio chatter between protagonist Sam Fisher and Irving Lambert, the voice in your earpiece and Director of the secret intelligence agency Third Echelon. As well as issuing mission objectives, there are some genuinely great one-liners and witty retorts from either side, with Sam showcasing a playfully rebellious and cynical side which occasionally cracks a smirk from ‘by the books’ Lambert. The story itself though is eyerollingly patriotic, with the US almost always seen as the good guys up against various Asian, Russian and Eastern European baddies. Propaganda might be a bit extreme, but I do wonder how Western audiences would interpret Splinter Cell’s themes of US peacekeeping and grandstanding moral authority.

Such is a shame that Splinter Cell is incredibly linear, painful even. Each path forward has a strict and inflexible idea in mind for how the player should tackle it. You’ll mostly be navigating through corridors, using a broad range of equipment and acrobatic techniques in an entirely prescribed method to overcome a problem. While this creates a tailored experience for the player, unravelling the game’s mechanics between each checkpoint and upskilling the player, it also eliminates any resemblance of emergent gameplay.

For example: despite the wealth of complex stealth mechanics, none are taken advantage of for differing routes. Exploration is limited solely to an occasional extra medkit which, given detection will most likely either instantly fail the mission or have Sam killed, it doesn’t really offer any advantage. How good would Splinter Cell be if each mission had a few branching paths to the objective?

You could have three routes to the objective: one being the regular path, taken by players and instructed by Lambert, but also a high-risk high-reward path to reach the objective quicker, testing seasoned players. Then, a secret path offering a mix of the two, but relying entirely on close observation of the environment and Sam’s acrobatic abilities to reach, potentially even incorporating the computer logs and text messages which currently only serves as flavour text.

Overall, Splinter Cell feels half-baked and its level design lacking in creativity. What could have been a richly mechanical and systems-led game, becomes a game which punishes out of box thinking.

[h3] Dynamic and complex stealth mechanics don’t quite overcome the game’s painful linearity. [/h3] Splinter Cell promises “Stealth Action Redefined” and delivers it for the most part. Each environment reacts to the player’s noise levels, including surface-type walked on (a la Thief), and different lighting intensities. For example: the various shades of light between pitch black and broad day means the player will occasionally be forced to take some serious risks in the name of progress. Taking a moderately exposed path, while the enemy turns their back, builds panic as you rush forward to the sounds of guards muttering between them. The sound across Splinter Cell is fantastic, but most enjoyable is the radio chatter between protagonist Sam Fisher and Irving Lambert, the voice in your earpiece and Director of the secret intelligence agency Third Echelon. As well as issuing mission objectives, there are some genuinely great one-liners and witty retorts from either side, with Sam showcasing a playfully rebellious and cynical side which occasionally cracks a smirk from ‘by the books’ Lambert. The story itself though is eyerollingly patriotic, with the US almost always seen as the good guys up against various Asian, Russian and Eastern European baddies. Propaganda might be a bit extreme, but I do wonder how Western audiences would interpret Splinter Cell’s themes of US peacekeeping and grandstanding moral authority. Such is a shame that Splinter Cell is incredibly linear, painful even. Each path forward has a strict and inflexible idea in mind for how the player should tackle it. You’ll mostly be navigating through corridors, using a broad range of equipment and acrobatic techniques in an entirely prescribed method to overcome a problem. While this creates a tailored experience for the player, unravelling the game’s mechanics between each checkpoint and upskilling the player, it also eliminates any resemblance of emergent gameplay. For example: despite the wealth of complex stealth mechanics, none are taken advantage of for differing routes. Exploration is limited solely to an occasional extra medkit which, given detection will most likely either instantly fail the mission or have Sam killed, it doesn’t really offer any advantage. How good would Splinter Cell be if each mission had a few branching paths to the objective? You could have three routes to the objective: one being the regular path, taken by players and instructed by Lambert, but also a high-risk high-reward path to reach the objective quicker, testing seasoned players. Then, a secret path offering a mix of the two, but relying entirely on close observation of the environment and Sam’s acrobatic abilities to reach, potentially even incorporating the computer logs and text messages which currently only serves as flavour text. Overall, Splinter Cell feels half-baked and its level design lacking in creativity. What could have been a richly mechanical and systems-led game, becomes a game which punishes out of box thinking.