View Full Version : Splinter Cell Reviewed

31-03-2004, 10:13 AM
Jim (finally) has got around to reviewing Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Stealth Team Action ( A long name for a game that's not as stunning as you might expect. If you're honest, would you agree with him on what he thinks?

31-03-2004, 04:01 PM
I'm sorry but.... thats....

worst. review. ever.

31-03-2004, 04:13 PM
Is there something specific you don't like?

It would be helpful if you could say why it is so awful.

Thanks Rafe

31-03-2004, 04:14 PM
N-D00D, that's... helpful. Why? Because you liked the game? Reviews are one person's opinion, so it may differ. Is Jim a bad writer? You don't like the style of the review? Come on, help us be a better site!

Thanks for the comment though

31-03-2004, 04:48 PM
First of all, I dont have ever played Splinter Cell, so its not the score I was dissapointed. I got an impression the review was written in around 5 minutes. It didnt tell much about the game at all, he didnt write anything about how's the BT game (you probably dont have two copies and two n-gages..?), and he gave 62% because its was technically fine AND "because someone out there likes it". Maybe it wasnt his intention to say so, but its a pretty crappy reason to give any kind of score. Maybe I'm spoiled by indepth reviews on major gaming sites like gamespot and gaming-age. This was the first review I have ever read on your site...

And I'm correct you want to be little bit tougher (and edgier) when reviewing games since for example Rayman 3 (best game on N-Gage by many) got only 70% from you when it has been getting 80-90 scores from other sites? BTW, I now ead Rayman 3 review and it was much better, I got a feeling Jim actually had played the game and put some time and thought to write the review. Maybe good rule of thumb would be "If you dont feel like writing a review, let someone else write it." :D

Anyway, sorry if I was little bit harsh...but thats was my first feeling when I read that short, incomplete review. IMO.

btw, sorry about my english, it isnt my native language (like you didnt notice it already..) :)

01-04-2004, 12:00 PM
Thanks for the feedback...

Yes, I agree that the review is terse and a little un-informative, this was partially intentional. I was trying to convey some of my feelings that Splinter Cell is not an exciting game that you keep wanting to pick it up and keep playing with it, there's something about the game that I (and quite a few others) seem to find boring. I guess I failed in conveying this aspect.

Score wise, we have some basic guidelines, and one of these is that we generally only give very low scores to games with glaring flaws, technically the game is fine, the movement and sound are good (better than a number of other N-Gage games to be honest), but in my opinion the overall game play is weak.

We did test the bluetooth playability, but that consisted of Ewan and I playing it for a couple of minutes in the pub before we got far too bored and played Fifa instead (as usual Ewan beat me at both games).

As for your rule of thumb: "If you dont feel like writing a review, let someone else write it." well if we had followed those lines, Splinter Cell might not have got reviewed by any of us :-)

01-04-2004, 01:30 PM
I'll just add to some of Jim's comments, seeing as I helped write the review guidelines.

No game can score 50%. If the reviewer things the game should be recommened, then it scores above 50, otherwise below 50%. We don't allow reviewers to sit on the fence. 62%is the upper end of 'boringly average' (Bog standard, run of the mill, average, middle of the road, medioce).

We have a goal of reviewing all the MMC Games as we are loaned them from Nokia (or purchase them ourselves), which means we all have to do some of the games that are bad. Personally I had to deal with Puyo Pop... ugh.

Perhaps if Jim had beaten me at FIFA I would have reviewed Splinter Cell and he would have got to look at something more exciting?

02-04-2004, 02:47 PM
ok ok....all exc...explanations accepted! ;))

Keep up the good work.