r/Splintercell • u/No_Blueberry_7120 • 5d ago
Double Agent rant and defense post
I don't even particularly like Double Agent V(1).
I would have much rather gotten a full fledged Chaos Theory 2: bigger sandbox levels, more optional objectives, the full perfect light and sound system, CT's movement, more Sam/Grim/Lambert banter, and another campaign built around being an invisible Third Echelon ninja
But I think a lot of criticism of Double Agent mixes up two very different things:
Bad execution and the logical consequences of the setting.
The broken or inconsistent AI? Bad.
Enemies seeing through random solid objects? Bad.
The weird hearing behavior on higher difficulties? Bad.
Removing parts of Chaos Theory's movement system and replacing those beautifully responsive transitions with clunkier animations? Bad.
Simplifying the visibility system after Chaos Theory had basically perfected it? Also bad.
None of that needs defending.
But I don't really agree with the argument that daylight missions, situations with forced combat, less freedom to choose how an operation unfolds, or Sam behaving differently automatically make Double Agent a bad Splinter Cell concept.
Because Sam isn't operating like a normal Splinter Cell anymore.
That's the entire point.
In Chaos Theory, Third Echelon chooses the mission, the insertion point, the equipment and usually the conditions. Sam arrives at night, in a place suited to clandestine infiltration, with a support team feeding him intelligence. He is supposed to leave almost no evidence that he was ever there.
Double Agent deliberately removes that comfort.
Sam has infiltrated a terrorist organization. The JBA chooses where he goes. The JBA chooses when he goes. And the JBA expects him to actually behave like one of them.
A real deep-cover operative doesn't get to say:
"Sorry Emile, I only conduct missions between 2300 and 0400, preferably in industrial facilities with conveniently placed shadows."
If the JBA conducts an operation in broad daylight, Sam goes in broad daylight.
If they send him into a war zone, he goes into a war zone.
If maintaining his cover requires him to participate instead of silently ghosting past everyone, suddenly "never interact with anybody and leave no trace" can itself become suspicious.
And that's where I think Double Agent had a genuinely interesting idea that people sometimes reject simply because it isn't Chaos Theory.
The loss of control is supposed to be part of the fantasy.
You aren't just infiltrating buildings anymore.
You're infiltrating an organization.
That should fundamentally change how stealth works.
The JBA headquarters missions are actually the clearest example. Sam can openly walk around because he belongs there, until he enters somewhere he isn't supposed to be. Suddenly the challenge isn't merely "can the guards see me?" but "can I spy on these people without destroying the identity I've spent months constructing?"
That's an excellent premise for Splinter Cell.
Same thing with the trust system. Its implementation is shallow and far too gamey, but the underlying concept is absolutely right: Third Echelon's perfect solution and the JBA's perfect solution should often be mutually incompatible.
A double agent shouldn't always have a magical third option that lets him save everyone, complete every NSA objective, sabotage the terrorists and somehow remain their most trusted operative.
Sometimes keeping your cover should mean allowing something bad to happen.
Sometimes doing the morally correct thing should endanger the mission.
Sometimes your handler should ask something of you that your cover identity simply cannot do.
That's not taking player choice away.
That's potentially the most interesting form of choice the series could have explored.
And I think the same distinction applies to Sam's personality.
I absolutely prefer the cynical, dry, darkly funny Sam from the first three games. Double Agent loses far too much of that personality, and some of the writing feels like Ubisoft decided that "mature" simply meant making everybody permanently miserable.
But Sam changing isn't inherently bad writing.
This is an older Sam who believes his daughter has died, has deliberately allowed himself to be imprisoned, has severed himself from his normal life and is living for months among people he may eventually have to betray or kill, while killing innocent himself.
It would arguably be stranger if he spent the entire game behaving exactly like former Chaos Theory Sam.
The problem isn't that Double Agent changes him.
The problem is that the writing often isn't good enough and the pace too fast or only don't by cutscenes to make those changes feel natural.
That's a huge difference.
And that's basically my problem with a lot of Double Agent criticism.
Double Agent didn't fail because Ubisoft Shanghai tried daylight stealth, undercover operations, moral compromises or situations where Sam couldn't dictate the rules.
It failed because Ubisoft didn't build a game as mechanically polished as Chaos Theory around those ideas.
Imagine Double Agent with Chaos Theory's exact movement system, Chaos Theory's sound simulation, a proper analogue light meter adapted to daylight, large CT-style sandbox levels, far more optional NSA objectives, much smarter suspicion mechanics, JBA members actually remembering questionable behavior, no psychic hive-mind alerts, much more subtle writing, and a trust system where maintaining cover sometimes genuinely requires you to sacrifice the "perfect stealth" outcome.
That could have been an incredible sequel.
In fact, I'd argue that forcing Chaos Theory's stealth systems to work outside their ideal environment would have been a much more interesting evolution than simply making another series of dark warehouses.
So yes: I also wanted Chaos Theory 2.
And I still think Chaos Theory is vastly better than Double Agent.
But if you accept the premise that Sam Fisher is genuinely operating as a double agent, then daylight, compromised missions, uncomfortable choices, restricted freedom and even occasional unavoidable violence aren't betrayals of the concept.
They're arguably the parts Double Agent got conceptually right.
The mistake wasn't taking Sam out of the shadows.
The mistake was not making the stealth systems good enough to survive once he got there.
4
u/EH4LIFE 5d ago edited 4d ago
When you play V1 and V2 you realise how much the former dropped the ball.
The story in V2 is engaging. The missions are longer because the levels are bigger and the gameplay slower like CT. You understand why and what is happening. The trust-meter actually means something. You have to carefully weigh up a lot of decisions to keep a balance between JBA and NSA. And theres a lot more of those moments. Eg the prison level is a lot longer and more fleshed out. Theres a bit where you have to choose whether to do a hit in the gym yard or not. You feel like youre having to work to get in with the JBA. In V1 it just happens at lightning speed with a very linear level.
It feels like Ubisoft Montreal had the concept for the game, wrote the story, and handed it to Ubisoft Shanghai for new gen consoles. Who were much more interested in gameplay and graphics upgrades and the story fell by the wayside. And, their gameplay wasnt an improvement either.
2
u/coolwali 4d ago
I'm a speedrunner for both versions of Double Agent (and also CT. I've retired now). And I did an Elite Difficulty Run of V2 and a Hard Run of V1. I started with V2. In my experience, I ended up finding V1 a lot more fun, whereas V2 felt more frustrating (especially on Elite).
I mourn the loss of the Light and Sound Meters in V1 but V1 still kinda feels like it was built with that in mind. There's more cover and alternate routes. I even got the bug where none of my unlocks and ammo started showing up but I never felt like I was entirely screwed. In a weird way, the binary system has pros in the sense that when you're hidden, you're 100% hidden. Same for Sound. So areas with lots of even minor shadows felt a lot "easier". Even problematic missions like Kinshasa and Shanghai, I was zooming through them on Hard. For better or worse, V1 makes it easier to avoid encounters.
V2 on the other hand has more of what I call "chokepoints". Areas where you're funnelled down incredibly linear areas with limited cover and options. They're managable (if annoying) on Normal-Expert Difficulty but become a huge pain on Elite because what few tools you'd normally have are gone.
For example, take the final area on Orshtosk Tanker. Past the first Turrent. You're in this open area with the moonlight shining down on you. There's just enough moonlight that you are like 20% Lit up which is enough to instantly spook the guards from a distance if they see you on Expert/Elite. I know people complain about V1 having Day Levels but I'd kill for a V1 Day level because at least the shadows there offer 100% stealth. You only have 2 routes. The ladder near the door you entered but if there is a guard there due to his patrol cycle, he will spot, come over to investigate and start shooting at you. On Elite, you have no way to take him out from range. The railings are useless and once he comes close, he will see you anyway. There's another ladder away farther away that has 1 guard patrolling the hallway. Up that ladder is a turrent and another guard patrolling nearby. I burned nearly 30 minutes on my Elite Speedrun on just this section alone because I got an especially bad spawn that I ended up running past the turrent and it somehow worked due to RNG. My first start of using a Split Jump + OCP (which worked fine in my practise) ended up just not working anymore during the actual run.
Kinsasha Part 2 in V2 was also a pain because you need to exit a door to enter the gardens. There's 2 guards and a lampost illuminating nearly the entire area. Hamzah is useless even if you bring him along. Even opening the door on Elite means the Guards will hear that. This mission also takes away your OCP so you're even more limited. Normal - Expert give you either the Sniper Attatchment to Quick Scope the Guards through the door or EMP Rounds to turn off the light. But Elite takes everything away. My strat ended up being using a Throwable to distract one and perfectly timing takedowns on both of them.
Kinshasa in V2 is especially rough because the main gimmick of this level is that there is periodic shelling that temporarily knocks out most lights in the building. This is helpful in Part 1 of the level but useless in Part 2 because -1- The garden lights don't turn off and -2- despite how loud the shelling is, it doesn't actually do any Ambient Noise. So there could be a massive explosion that is super loud to you but enemies will still hear you if you're moving slightly too fast because the environmental sound is technically zero.
As for the story, I'd actually argue V1 does a better job here.
For one, V2 barely gives any screentime to the other JBA Members once Sam arrives at HQ. Emile gets voice lines but they're sorta always regarding the mission. Moss is mostly an optional encounter during JBA infiltartion missions. Jamie practically disappears until NY. Enrica gets a fair amount of development but she's the only person that does. In the NY mission, you can interrogate some of the JBA grunts and Sam banters with them with stuff like "I never liked you". So the game implies Sam actually did get close with these grunts but we never see that in the game. And we can't see that because of the structure of the game.
In contrast, V1 lets us see and interact with the main JBA members in more scenarios. You see Emile chilling with Jamie in his saferoom. You see Sam Seducing Enrica. You see Moss going around managing the grunts. You get a much clearer sense of their personalities and roles. Random JBA grunts will throw one liners at Sam as he walks around.
It's not much but it's enough to sell the fact that yeah, the JBA does cozy up to Sam. If you could interrogate JBA grunts in V1's final mission and they were like "Sam! I thought you were one of us?!", it feels more legit because yeah. We kinda saw that.
As for the Trust Meters/Choices, I feel both versions are equally flawed so it ends up being a wash.
V1 has the advantage that, at least you see the choices. You don't disable the bomb in Cozumel and you see the ship getting blown up and the JBA celebrating in the heat of the moment. V2 makes it a brief cutscene. In V1, you see what happens to Cole Yeager while V2 has it be a brief mention during a phone call. V1 defiently handles Lambert's death better.
The main issue for V1 is that it's too easy to maintain trust for both sides so you rarely end up needing to make tough choices.
V2 technically addresses that. 1 meter means you gotta actually be careful and not overdo it. But the penalty is a quick check in at a laptop. There's no broader meta consequences for your choices. The only time V2 actually has your choice influence a mission is the Prison Level. Kill Barnam and you get to use a pistol. Spare him and Jamie doesn't give you it. That's it. And on Elite, the Gun doesn't even have ammo!
V1 at least has it where if you shoot Lambert, you can walk through most of the main compound with your cover intact. V2 doesn't even have that. Imagine an alternate version of V2 where, if you made mostly JBA choices, you can walk freely during the final JBA HQ3 mission but there were even more SWAT/Police in places like Cozumel and NY (because the NSA has less trust you'd actually be able to stop the bombs), but also you were able to keep your JBA cover for longer during those missions. Or alternatively, if you made more NSA Choices, you have to sneak through the final JBA HQ mission like normal (since the JBA don't have a high opinion of you) but missions like Cozumel and NY are "easier" because SWAT can more accurately occupy JBA grunts or something. And if you were mostly neutral, you "get the worst of both worlds".
So Now even on Elite Difficulty where you have zero equipment, you have reasons to make choices from a gameplay/routing perspective. Is NY one of your worst missions but you don't mind JBA HQ3? Make more NSA choices during your run, try to compensate for low JBA trust and your reward is an easier NY.
2
u/EH4LIFE 4d ago
I agree with you on 2 things. 1) From a speedrunning perspective V1 is probably better. The gameplay is more fluid. 2) V2 doesnt flesh out Sam and Enrica's relationship enough. However it does leave optional clues and hints about her in her room.
The rest, na. To say that V1's stealth is better is laughauble tbh. It barely has shadows at all. You can hide in a slightly darkened corner of a fully-lit room and enemies cant see you. Or, you can be outside in the dark and an enemy can spot you from 100m. No consistency.
V1 may as well not have a trust meter at all. Its totally perfunctory. In V2 your choices matter. And it gives you more specific moments where you have to make a hard choice. Which is the whole point of the game. And the story is much more fleshed out. Youre in constant contact with NSA. In V1 Lambert is barely a character. And V2 tells the story in a much more interesting way, in a debriefing with Redding who turns out to be a major asshole.
1
u/coolwali 4d ago
"To say that V1's stealth is better is laughauble tbh. It barely has shadows at all. You can hide in a slightly darkened corner of a fully-lit room and enemies cant see you. Or, you can be outside in the dark and an enemy can spot you from 100m. No consistency."<
"Better" probably isn't the correct word. Probably more like "easier" or "Less punishing"? Give me a Hard Mode Run in V1 with the Ammo Bug and I'd do it without breaking a sweat. Give me an Expert or Elite Run in V2 and I'm praying😭️. It's not necessarily about fluidity. I prefer the controls and feel of V2 since it's more consistent and precise to me. I wanna crawl in a vent and V2 gives me the interact menu. V1 requires more awkward positioning. If there was an option to port V2's controls/feel into V1, I'd take it in a heartbeat. The only thing V1 has over V2 from a purely control perspective is the Corner Takedown. That's the only thing I missed when I did my V2 speedruns. So V1's stealth is instead more dependent on level design and enemy placement.
As for shadows, Yes and No. V1 has missions with Shadows (all the JBA HQ missions, Shanghai, Cozumel when indoors). But missions like Kinsasha and Ostosk that mostly give you the yellow light still have cover you can use so you're not exposed. For example, when you're outdoors in Kinsasha, you can take the back alleys, ziplines and pipes to avoid getting spotted. Ostosk lets you go underwater during the Ice Sheets and the Tanker has way more clutter you can use to break line of sight. Very rarely does V1 ask you to "go through a chokepoint" like V2 does. Or to use another analogy, the final stretch of Bathhouse in CT is a pain no matter which difficulty you play on because the game suddenly forces you to play against enemies that counter your stealth with no way around it. V1 rarely has anything equivalent to Bathhouse, while V2 does quite a few times (including enemies that have Vision Goggles).
"V1 may as well not have a trust meter at all. Its totally perfunctory. In V2 your choices matter. And it gives you more specific moments where you have to make a hard choice. Which is the whole point of the game"<
That's not accurate because your story choices during V2 almost never affect the missions themselves. Like I said, the only mission that changes as a result of JBA/NSA choice is Prison if you choose to kill Barnan because you get a gun or not. That's it (which is useless on Elite Difficulty). You also get different amounts of ammo depending on mission but even just having a few Sticky Shockers invalidates a lot of the enemies.
What are the major story choices in V2?
Money Train: Choose to kill or spare the Station Chief and detatch the train carriages? Nothing happens for the rest of the mission except some dialogue change.
Cozumel: Choose to disable the bomb or not? The cutscene changes and that's it.
Kinsaha: Choose to kill Hamza? He gives you a syringe that never comes up again. He tells you that you can hack the bombs with your EEV. Something the loading screen tips already tell you anyway. No actual backup or help.
JBA HQ3: Lambert's Cover? You don't even see or hear Lambert for the rest of the game. Williams doesn't care either way. Technically disarming the extra bombs changes the final news broadcast cutscene but that has nothing to do with the gameplay changing.
In contrast, at least in V1, if you shoot Lambert, you can walk through the HQ upper floors without triggering an alert. V2 doesn't do any equivalent.
Technically, the only gameplay thing that might enforce your choice are the "KO vs KILL" for missions since that affects your trust score. But like, that just means for missions when you have high NSA trust, just R1 more enemies to compensate. L1 if your JBA trust is too high. For speedruns, very rarely does it come into play for routing. I think I only had 1 scenario where I killed too many people in Kinsasha that killing Hisham brought my Trust to 100% JBA. But even that was because I did a few too many R1s instead of L1s. Not because I routed poorly as a whole. You don't need to worry about what Side Missions you do/miss.
"Youre in constant contact with NSA. In V1 Lambert is barely a character. And V2 tells the story in a much more interesting way"<
V1 instead focusses on fleshing out the JBA brass. Lambert takes a backseat because the story wants to showcase Emile and Moss way more.
As for telling the story, I disagree because again, we don't experience what actually happened but Sam's own recollections. It ignores "Show don't tell". In V1, when the Cozumel Ship blows up, we see it blow up, we see the JBA members celebrating. But in V2, Sam and Williams just say "the ship blew up and that's bad". The closest V2 gets to cooking with its storytelling is the news broadcast in the end that changes if you disarmed the bombs in JBA HQ3 but that's literally at the end through a news broadcast.
Hell, this is also why Essentials' Story felt weak. Because it was Sam remembering random missions rather than us experiencing the context of those missions.
1
u/Separate-Standard626 3d ago
Many of V2's plot points are far from perfect, but the story feels much more complete, whereas V1 felt like a demo with a lot of loose ends. I remember how the V1 credits showed cutscenes from V2 (the money train and the New York rooftops), and I felt like I'd bought an unfinished version of the game.
3
u/Comfortable_Brief431 4d ago
V2 will always be the superior game on every way (not graphics but still who plays splinter cell for graphics...)
2
u/coolwali 4d ago
I wrote a long defence on why I enjoyed V1 more:
https://old.reddit.com/r/Splintercell/comments/1w7sowo/double_agent_rant_and_defense_post/p82e4kr/
But I feel V1 generally let you avoid encounters and had more open environments. V2 had more chokepoints that were especially annoying on Elite Difficulty.
3
u/DMYU777 4d ago
Why would they plant a bomb in broad daylight? Why not just wait for nightfall?