u/Cyborg800-V2

https://preview.redd.it/hnao88nmjcth1.png?width=1190&format=png&auto=webp&s=797589a404558759bf29e6149b1ced311c7522e4

Since Interstellar, Nolan has made two films based on historical events (Dunkirk and Oppenheimer), one adaptation (The Odyssey), and one original film (Tenet, arguably his worst film), and I've been ambivalent about them all.

Hitchcock could do fun adventures like North By Northwest but also thrillers in a single setting like Dial M For Murder and Rear Window that were no less engrossing. Kubrick made epics like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Barry Lyndon but also transgressive works like A Clockwork Orange and Full Metal Jacket. You can see trademarks of each director across these films, but you can't say FMJ felt like Lyndon or North By Northwest like Psycho. I get the sense that Nolan has been taking stories and making them fit his brand rather than adapting as a filmmaker to new things.

It doesn't help that the people who contributed to his earlier films have left. I've been confident that Interstellar was the peak and things have gone downhill since then and knowing that Jonathan Nolan hasn't contributed since that film really puts things into perspective. It's also worth noting that Inception was the only Nolan film from 2005-2014 that Jonathan wasn't involved, and Inception exemplifies things that became even worse in later films like the convoluted plot, the tormented male lead (with some guilt-washing in the cases of Oppenheimer and Odysseus), and characters who come second to the spectacle and said-convoluted plots.

Other absences include editor (Lee Smith to Jennifer Lame) and cinematographer (Wally Pfister to Hoyte van Hoytema). The quick-editing of Tenet through The Odyssey has resulted in films that simultaneously feel bloated yet undercooked. Tenet and Oppenheimer inundate you with so much exposition that you can feel overwhelmed. As for cinematography, while I love Interstellar, I've come to notice that Nolan's recent output feels rather small in scale despite their large budgets. Compare Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven to The Odyssey and you'll see what I mean.

I don't know where else Nolan has to go as a filmmaker. He accomplished all he could do in the 2000s and early-2010s and has now established a formula based on superior films made decades ago, from Memento to Inception to Interstellar. But if you were to compare, say, The Dark Knight to The Odyssey, you'd see that the former feels grander and more cohesive despite not being a historical epic. It feels livelier, with moments of levity in between the more serious bits, engaging action, and leaves you more time to breathe. It doesn't feel like an extended trailer meant to showcase IMAX and cater to a particular brand.

I don't know what to say. I've been doing things like ranking the maps and discussing the stealth and stuff, but Conviction is a linear cover shooter with an interesting gameplay loop, but doesn't feel like a Splinter Cell game at all. I think Halo fans are ridiculous when hating 343 games like 5 because they evolved the gameplay (5 has my favorite MP) and can defend Resident Evil 6 for doubling down on the over-the-top action and cheese established as far back as 1 or 2 (its issue was, like Conviction, chasing trends, as Mercenaries, like Deniable Ops, allows the gameplay to shine), but aside from two returning voice actors and cool athletics, I struggle to see what resemblance there is to prior entries.

I really do think that we could have had mark and execute in conjunction with the classic stealth and, from what I've seen, Deniable Ops and Blacklist validate that. I've made it to stage 4 of Russian Embassy in Deniable Ops and it honestly feels slower, stealthier, and less explosive than the campaign. I'm shooting out lights and taking out guards one by one. I don't know why staples like non-lethal options, lockpicking/hacking, carrying bodies, and whistling had to be removed. They could have complemented the panther gameplay, but due to their absence, you're left with a repetitive run-of-your-mill shooter that only really shines when what made Splinter Cell unique mildly shows, like hunting down enemies while shimmying along ledges or climbing along pipes.

As for the story, it's definitely more emphasized here than in previous titles. I love Lambert's betrayal and I do like the retcon to Sarah's death because it barely factored into Double Agent and allowed Ironside to show a different side to Sam here, but I really don't know who this game was supposed to appeal to. Newcomers to the franchise or the genre wouldn't have the same investment that fans have and said-fans were obviously not happy with the genre-change.

If we really had to have a more aggressive Sam to reflect the story, I wonder if something like Blacklist would have been more impactful, stealth but with more aggressive options and greater freedom to explore the cool locations. What we have is an overly linear short campaign that seems to have some fun extras, but it ultimately falls short of every preceding title, the jankier Double Agent V1 included.

Here's my ranking of the levels off the top of my head, though a lot of them kind of blur together due to the more one-note gameplay:

1. White Box Labs (a stealthier level with a cool defense section and gadgets)
2. Third Echelon HQ (the hardest level in the game but felt more Splinter Cell-esque with the return of the goggles and story-wise. Nice Chaos Theory throwback with dragging an enemy through to disable lasers)
3. Reservoir (starts out fine, but that helicopter section was a bit naff)
4. Airfield (takes the gloves off and gameplay started to shine here)
5. Downtown District (nice atmosphere, but an example of the gameplay leading to less memorable levels aside from visuals)
6. White House (again, nothing really stands out to me aside from location)
7. Washington Monument (more story-focused, wish we had more of it)
8. Market/Kobin's Mansion (basically tutorials)
9. Highway (doesn't even resemble Splinter Cell, just a generic shooter level)

Here are my reviews of the other games:

• Splinter Cell
• Pandora Tomorrow
• Chaos Theory
• Double Agent V2
• Double Agent V1

Click the links for my previous reviews on this subreddit of the earlier games

Seriously, what happened? V2 may have felt same-y in environments and you could tell corners were cut due to the reduced development time, but it was still a solid experience with good if not great levels. Unlike SC1 and Pandora Tomorrow, there's not a single level that I don't like and, like Chaos Theory, the improved gameplay and quick saves on console made for a less frustrating experience.

V1 is still basically the same as Chaos Theory and V2 gameplay-wise, but the light and shadow mechanic that defined the franchise is neutered if not non-existent for the majority of the levels. Removing the sound and light meters (with the latter being substituted with green/yellow/red colors) was a baffling decision that made for a more frustrating experience.

This game really suffers because it falls short of not just Chaos Theory, the arguable peak of the genre, and V2, a higher-quality counterpart, but also Pandora Tomorrow, Ubisoft Shanghai's previous effort. That game brought in QOL features over the original and provided creative scenarios like the tailing in Jerusalem and Indonesia, the flashes of thunder in Jakarta, and LAX having you identify targets based on their body temperature. It's like the one lesson Shanghai learned was that the Train level was a cool setpiece and that the franchise should have more of those.

The levels are generally shorter than Chaos Theory and V2, being more linear and setpiece-heavy. Iceland in V2 took me 45-60 min while V1's took me 20-25 min. The levels that took me more time were Sea of Okhotsk and Kinshasha and that's because those were daytime missions that were frustrating to get through. Really, I can't think of a single level I really liked. They ranged from mediocre to poor.

As for the story, V2 had its issues but it somehow felt more fleshed out due to the introductory level better setting up the JBA and Sarah's death, the transitionary cutscenes showing Sam's thoughts, and Money Train and Cozumel better establishing a cutscene between Sam and Enrica.

The only positives I can currently think of are the JBA missions better living up to the Double Agent name more than V2's JBA missions despite being still mediocre experiences, the gorgeous visuals, and the soundtrack.

TLDR: The worst game in the franchise so far, falling short of Pandora Tomorrow, Chaos Theory, and its last-gen counterpart V2. Who knows where the franchise would be today if this game had stuck to the franchise's strengths or if Ubisoft let Montreal work on the next-gen version or just polished up V2 as the sole experience.

Here's my ranking of the levels off the top of my head:

1. Shanghai (finally some nighttime action in my SC game, though still below the standards of the majority of if not all of the levels from the first three games and V2)
2. Cozumel (daytime, but less frustrating than the other two)
3. JBA 4 (not as satisfying as New York in V2, but still satisfying nevertheless to let loose and beat up/kill JBA members. Final boss and defusal were way better in V2 though)
4. Iceland
5. Ellsworth
6. JBA 1/2/3 (sorry, these all blur together for me)
7. Coast Guard Boat (just a short epilogue, not much to mention)
8. Sea of Okhotsk (my favorite level in V2 is my second least favorite in V1)
9. Kinshasa (seriously, daytime missions in SC is such a disaster)

Yeah, if you want to play Double Agent, just play V2.