Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow had some of the most creative and innovative multiplayer in this history of videogames. No other game before it or since has used internet gaming so well. Communication/teamwork were so vital to success in that game it was unbelievable.
Why hasnt it had a bigger impact on modern games?
Gears of War 2 is nothing but a team deathmatch borefest that we have all seen for the past 15 years.
Posts: 155 | Location: Nope | Registered: 02 December 2008
Its vital of course. I dont know how you read that in my post. Pretty foolish.
You clearly have never played the game because without voice chat THE GAME DOES NOT WORK. It is integral to success. Unlike games like Call of Duty 4 and Gear of War 2 etc...where communication is important but not imperitive. A highly skilled team in those two games can EASILY turn their mics off and win. The same can not be said for Pandora Tomorrow/Chaos Theory.
The genius behind those games is just out of this world. Its only real downfall was that you needed a room full of players who wanted to play the game. Getting one idiot who wanted mess around killed it.
You should learn to play games with a bit more depth involved.
Posts: 155 | Location: Nope | Registered: 02 December 2008
Well, I think you've stated the reasons yourself while defending it. Needing a roomful of dedicated players. All of whom need voicechat.
Kind of ups the bar a little too high to be really successful. Most games thrive on gamers who just want to mess around. Most of whom don't have a microphone. You're probably removing over 90% of the audience right there.
1) It was actually a fairly popular online game during its day.
2) It was XBox exclusive meaning anyone with XBox Live had a headset. Thats 100% of the players.
3) You rarely ran into someone without a headset. In a 2 hour gaming session you could easily go the entire time without seeing someone with no heaset.
4) The games were 2 on 2. 4 players total. Its not like demanding a room full of 16 players cooperating.
5) Heck, it spawned 2 other sequals that were also fairly popular.
I just dont know why online gaming hasnt come that far today. Hell, the original Counter Strike still holds up well which is crap. People do seem to be too stupid to want anything more than run shoot die respawn gameplay.
Posts: 155 | Location: Nope | Registered: 02 December 2008
I wouldnt call it "hardcore" but it was probably the only multiplayer game that was based on the use of stealth, deception, and teamwork. NOT just running around killing, dieing and respawning.
Definitely the best multiplayer game of all time. Way ahead of its time.
Posts: 155 | Location: Nope | Registered: 02 December 2008
as an avid stealth fan yea that does sound like a wicked multiplayer, but the best? well thats realative goes without sayin tho dosent it however i just read that the new chronicles of riddick game will feature a 'pitch black' multiplayer mode where we got 3 normal people with guns an flashlights vs riddick(whos much faster) in total darkness. an if you kill riddick you get to be him in the next round. idunno about you but that sounds like some intense sh*t!!!
Posts: 23 | Location: computer | Registered: 05 December 2008
Why hasnt the greatest multiplayer game of all time had a lasting impact?
quote:
You should learn to play games with a bit more depth involved.
You answered your own question. Creativity is no doubt admired but if you're not catoring to the casual gamer then you've got a game that won't leave a mark in the industry.
I'll admit that I haven't played that Splinter Cell game, but by calling Call of Duty 4's multi-player simple run and gun is a sign that you haven't had your mits on it for very long. Games like 3-on-3 Team Tactical downright requires voice cooperation for successful rounds and even in the common Free-for-All and Team Deathmatch games sound is an important factor that many fools overlook, which is why I never lose. If I hear your footsteps around the corner I'm putting you in your grave in the next 3 seconds.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Frame,
I just think Im smarter than most people or something....
How can something be fun when youve been playing essentially the same mode for the past 10 years? Doesnt your brain crave originality or depth? Its like people who buy crappy Nickelback records. All you people are the same.
Posts: 155 | Location: Nope | Registered: 02 December 2008
You try to get a point across and you insult your opposing party so casually? In an industry that virtually forces change one of the stupidest things I can hear about gaming is that it's been the same for 10 years... 5 years, even. Incorporate the same strategies from Counter-Strike into Gears of War and you'll look like a headless chicken running... respawn, and look like a headless chicken running. The modes may be basically the same on paper but tactics do change--cover systems, sound and true-to-life physics are vital--and as I've mentioned before, other original modes are available at play for the more hardcore. So you say Team Tactical "could have been done on PC's ten years ago" but your precious, precious mode in Splinter Cell couldn't? As I've never played the game I'm interested as to how because that phrase raised my eyebrow. I thought the question was "communication/teamwork" and Team Tactical inspires nothing but that and encourages you to play with people you can count on.
cut it out boys, intellegence becomes ironic when condescending. narcissism is fools talk! that said i finally googled splinter an yes i have played it and its multiplayer, (only splitscreen co-op tho) but what of the nightvision goggles? wouldnt they give away position against a human player?
Posts: 23 | Location: computer | Registered: 05 December 2008
Frame - Of course there is SOME change. No one is foolish enough to believe that except maybe you. Yes, team deathmatch does change game by game, year by year, but lets face it...The technology is there now where we dont have to rely on just team deathmatch and its still essentially the main gameplay mode today.
In Splinter Cell you honestly had a 5% chance of winning if your partner had no voice communication. That should tell you how vital communication was in that game.
No, Splinter Cell could not have been done on PCs 10 years ago.
Posts: 155 | Location: Nope | Registered: 02 December 2008
In Splinter Cell you honestly had a 5% chance of winning if your partner had no voice communication. That should tell you how vital communication was in that game.
Wow, what a revelation! As inaccurate and random your 5% calculation is I can assure you that the likeliness of your chances of winning in a Team Tactical match will be considerably low without communication just the same. You know what the difference is? The games you dismiss so easily provide more variety than Splinter Cell. Where Splinter Cell is strictly stealth in titles like Call of Duty and Rainbow Six you have the choice of approaching either stealth or guerilla tactics. Jesus, your stupid question's been answered numerous times, one that anybody who's been in gaming for years could answer their damn selves. So what's your quest now? Trying to make yourself look like a super genius?
inaccurate and random your 5% calculation is I can assure you that the likeliness of your chances of winning in a Team Tactical match
Two things...
1) Your judging Splinter Cell Multiplayer when you have clearly never played it. How moronic can that be? How you could say "X Game provides more depth because SC is strictly stealth" is beyond me. I'm pretty sure you have no idea what "depth" means by this statement alone.
2) If you are going to attack anything in a debate you will look foolish if you dont give concrete examples. Case in point: Look at your post.
Posts: 155 | Location: Nope | Registered: 02 December 2008
Metacritic Forums 
