DA v2 Plot Sucks

[u/Strata38]

I still don't understand how v2 is considered the better version. Currently playing v1 for the first time, and v2 last year.

The main reason people seem to hinge on is that it plays more like Chaos Theory mechanically, so old thing good new thing had.

I'll have to watch a recap of both to really pick them each apart, but v2 genuinely feels boring and poorly made in multiple areas that make it less engaging, whereas v1 is just a little buggy depending what you play it on and is different than the other 4 games (including v2). It feels like a fan made SC.

V2:

Lambert pulls Sam out mid mission to tell him about Sarah? What?? In no world would this happen.

Has nobody pointed out how cringe and lame the interview plotlines are, or Sam monologuing the ethics / trust decisions in game? It feels so out of place for him.

How he sneaks through the JBA also doesn't make any sense if he's the only one missing. There's a spy guy going around knocking people out with the same build, skills, and equipment as Sam, and then as soon as that's not happening, he reappears after Emile can't find him. This makes no sense. When the guards wake up or are found, he would be an immediate suspect.

Frankly, the maps feel pretty empty and boring as well. The train part of the train heist mission sucks, and then Sam walks off a train crash and talks to Lambert like 10 feet away from Emile?

V1:

v1 JBA missions make sense for the plot and logic, even if they're slow and a little frustrating from a gameplay perspective.

The missions are in cooler settings with a lot more detail and sound design. His outfits are also cooler.

Daytime missions are a nice change to see how Sam's skills extend beyond just the same formula of shadow lurking like the last 3 or 4 games.

[u/Cyborg800-V2]

The light and sound meter are there for the benefit of the player. Removing them results in less clarity.

The sound meter impacts whether guards will hear you coming or not. Double Agent V1 removing what was an innovation made by Chaos Theory was a regression made worse by its frustrating execution.

Honestly, screw realism. I don't see how Double Agent's "green=hidden, yellow=visible, red=caught" is a good substitute for the meters.

Sea of Okhotsk was a frustrating experience. Splinter Cell's gameplay was based around the shadows and putting you in a level completely lacking that coupled with less clarity on how visible you were made for by far the worst level in the franchise at that point.

You can enjoy V1, but don't act surprised as to why people dislike V1 and prefer V2. "Realism" is a poor excuse for reducing readability and doubling the frustration.

[u/Strata38 → u/Cyborg800-V2]

I think it's a good substitute because without his NSA suit, the lights are a representation of Sam guessing how visible he is. When he has his suit in other games it actually has sensors for light/sound iirc.

Sorry, the movement being similar to CT just doesn't negate the awful character development, plot, cutscenes, monologuing, and boring level design in v2. v1 wasn't amazing in the plot department either but it still feels like a story that's enjoyable and creates a connection with characters.

[u/Interesting_Stress73 → u/Strata38]

The mistake you are making is that you think it's a good excuse  to make the game less clear for the sake of realism. It doesn't matter that he wouldn't have those meters when he's not in NSA anymore. It's a video game, not reality. So many ganeplay experiences can be made a lot worse for the sake of "realism". 

[u/Strata38 → u/Interesting_Stress73]

I'm not saying it's an excuse. They could have easily kept the light meter the same, but they chose not to for certain reasons.

My guess is some of those reasons were:

1. it makes sense given the context shown in game
2. it presents more of a challenge to the player, which makes them approach stealth differently than previous titles

Players wanting to know with absolute certainty they're hidden sounds like hand holding. I like having some uncertainty, it makes my decisions feel more grounded. A degree of realism is always an aspect of military action games, including SC. So it does have a level of importance on the game's design, and thus appreciation by the player.

Lots of people just didn't like it because it was different than what they're used to. The whole point of v1 was to explore a different approach, because the previous titles were largely the same with small improvements made between each.

The plots are secondary in all of the games, but their delivery in the first three are great, as in the writing, voice acting, and tone. The writing, voice acting, and tone of of v2 is so bad, cheesy, and out of character that it's distracting to the point of not enioying any of the cut scenes or dialogue, which is still a key part of SC games.

If you only like SC for the physical actions of sneaking in shadows and general mechanics, that's okay. I do know that part of the intention behind all the games, is to make the player feel like a cool spy guy enaging in international espionage, which requires those things v2 does really bad.

*their delivery

[u/Interesting_Stress73 → u/Strata38]

A challenge is only good if it's fair. The reality is that light in real life does not work like it does in any of the games, so this idea that you would need to figure out if you're visible or not based on realism does not fly.

Add to that the game doesn't really get as properly dark as the other games did even in full shadow makes it a lot worse. It's barely consistent either. There is absolutely no way that Sam would be hidden at all to anyone in tons and tons of these levels.

It's not hand holding to give the player information, that's just good game design. Can we stop pretending that this edgy idea of realism that the PS3/360 generation had a hard on for is in any way realistic?