Talk:Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell (video game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Untitled[edit]

Instead of getting into a pointless (not to mention time consuming) edit war I would like to discuss why the link

is considered spam. Please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/When_should_I_link_externally and especially the discussion about IMDB. // Liftarn

There is a considerable difference between IMDB and an open directory with just links to other websites. IMDB supports our articles by stating the actors, directors, producers, etc etc of everyone involved in a film/video game or whatever. The site also has information on plot summary, awards etc etc etc. The site has high-content, which is a prerequisite for Wikipedia:External links. An open directory that has no content of it's own besides links to other websites does not have high-content. I've discussed this with you already. Seeing that you've targeted other articles on Wikipedia with this link, I will request an admin/mediator to look into this matter. K1Bond007 20:02, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
IMDb has information. DMOZ is just a directory with more external links. I don't think linking to DMOZ is a good idea. Andre (talk) 21:36, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
I can't say that I'm for or against it but it should be pointed out that according to a Google search there exist at least 500 articles on the English Wikipedia that contain links to dmoz.org. Some articles, such as Literature, contain multiple links to the directory. --TheDotGamer | Talk 03:35, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

First I would like to point out that I find that you (K1Bond007) call it spam quite rude. I would also point out Wikipedia:External_links/temp that while not official do say "When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories". Personally I find it better to have a single link to a link directory rather than making the article into a link directory (because that's not what Wikipedia is, but ODP is a link directory). // Liftarn

Well I'm sorry you took it so personal. I wasn't trying to be rude, but whatever. I don't think it really adds anything to the article, but if you truly feel it does, with only 7 links 1 redudant, and 4 others going to Gamespot, then add it. I don't care. K1Bond007 18:18, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Done! // Liftarn

The best stealth game i ever played[edit]

Splinter Cell is the best game i have ever played . it had me hooked from day one and the stealth mode made the game ever more thirlling. Ubisoft has done a great job in splinter cell. i think that if it had been given more publicity or released by a financial powerhouse like EA it would have sold more copies coz this game rocks. The graphics in the game is stunning and the weapons and tools we get to use are breathtaking. I have to mention it again : the graphics are stunning. the gameplay is one which hooks us into it. we have to use our brain in order to win this game and its not like some mindless killing FPS like counter strike or Max Payne.

all in all : SPLINTER CELL ROCKS!!!

The graphics are pretty plain for an Unreal engine game (have you actually played Unreal?). The weapons and tools are standard fare for the genre, except that the weapons are annoyingly weak (you can shoot a guy 2 times in the head and he can still be alive), and overall the gameplay is extremely linear when compared to other stealth games, like Thief or Metal Gear, and unlike those games which handle stealth elegantly, Splinter Cell shoves it down your throat, for example when you move to certain checkpoints, there is a "body check" to make sure that you hid all the bodies or the alert status increases (even though no actual NPCs found the bodies). There are also a lot of "gotchas" like when you snipe some random guy from 200 feet away and get a message "surprise, you needed that guy to open a lock, so mission failed" (huh??). Also, when you slip up and cause guards to be alerted, there is often no way out of it other than to start shooting and kill everyone. There is no recovery mechanism like Thief's flash bombs or hiding places like in Metal Gear. You just have to sit in a dark spot and hope you don't get cornered, but if you do, it turns into a bad fps. It's a decent game with high production values in a very small genre, so of course it is appreciated. But as far as stealth games go, the design has numerous shortcomings and flaws. The series could be a lot better than it is. 24.6.99.30 11:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Georgian Progammers[edit]

Is it necesarry to mentio all those Gerogian programmers? They serve no real purpose to the story and are really just generic cannon fodder bad guys. And shouldnt Blaustein and Madison be mentioned?


Dtox.danny 03:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Faaaaar too technical[edit]

"PlayStation 2: this version runs at a lower resolution than the Xbox and GCN versions, and sacrifices had to be made to the graphics including more jagged edges, duller colors and less lighting effects"

You might want to dumb that down some more, I can't understand it! Ps, how many more jagged edges were included? 6? 7? Shouldn't this number really be researched? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poddster (talkcontribs) 23:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It means the edges are more jagged. I'm not sure what else is "too technical". Wikipedia can educate readers about Display resolution, jaggies, colours and lighting effects. Jetekus 17:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tharealsplintercell.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Tharealsplintercell.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

PC Bonus levels[edit]

"None of the bonus content from the other versions are present on this version. To get the Xbox Live bonus levels (Kola Cell, Vselka Infiltration, Vselka Submarine) for the PC version, you have to buy the limited collector's edition of Chaos Theory or Splinter Cell: Mission Pack, which is sold only in Europe." This is completely false. I bought the Bargain Bin version of Splinter Cell, (just a jewel case), from Best Buy and this is the latest patched version and it includes the levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZuljinRaynor (talkcontribs) 20:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Prior to the release of Chaos Theory, the content in the article was true. I don't know what re-releases they have made since then. ColdFusion650 (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thief and MGS[edit]

"Splinter Cell's stealth-based gameplay, although frequently compared to the Metal Gear series, has more in common with that of the cult PC series Thief which pre-dates it by several years."
Am I missing something about the dates here? The Thief series seems to originate in 1998 (unless the 1981 arcade game is related, which it doesn't appear to be), while the Metal Gear series began in 1987(!) and Metal Gear Solid was released in 1998, the same year as Thief: The Dark Project. Or is this just an unclear sentence supposed to indicate that Thief predates Splinter Cell? Philip Reuben (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the original author was referring to the fact that Thief came several years before SC. However, there appears to be some validity to the statement because MGS uses nothing but vision-fields for its stealth element; Thief and Splinter Cell use shadows, light-indicators, walk-speed, etc. Still, not entirely encyclopedic.69.26.207.224 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Introduction video[edit]

The bonus disc on the Xbox Classics edition features an "introduction" video (along with a "making of" section for it) which depicts a version of events leading up to the first mission in Georgia (seemingly contradicting everything you're told about Madison and Blaustein at the same time) followed by a short sequence of Sam on a sharkdiving expedition with his daughter. Does anyone know anything about this, specifically why there's so much contradiction in the narrative, and why it was included on the bonus disc rather than on the original game? MultipleTom (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Censorship[edit]

Should it not be pointed out that Crystal Methods "Name of the game" song is censored in at least the version for the PC? Instead for singing "you motherfuckers", its now only "you mother"?

That would be trivial information. It wouldn't help the article in any significant way. Eik Corell 19:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you call censorship a trivial thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
In this case, yep. And unless reliable third party sources have picked up on it, it's not worth including. Eik Corell 22:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Not in this case or in any other case is censorship a trivial thing, what do you mean by "reliable third sources" I could post youtube links so you could hear for yourself that its censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that a song in a video-game has been censored is not notable. Unless a reliable source has covered or written about this, it is not notable per the policy WP:N, specifically the "general notability guideline". Eik Corell 18:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I disagree at the strongest. A game that starts with explaining what FREEDOM OF SPEECH means and is itself CENSORED is a major issue. Maybe you like censorship what do i know? PS Your links to Wp:s so called "Reliable sources" and "Notability" have been blocked because they were after all not so reliable as you said, but what do you others think? Should it be mentioned on the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The guidelines on original research state that
Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.
Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
If the shortcut hotlinks are not working on your computer, try entering the links directly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources
To recap: Ynless you can find a reliable source for what you're trying to add, it probably shouldn't be in the article. Eik Corell 02:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Scary! Especially this: Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. (1984?) This includes unpublished facts, (Nope! Youtube!) arguments, (Strong) speculation, (None whatsoever) and ideas; (1984?) and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. While we at the same time can see the full uncut video on youtube of Crystal Methods "Name of the game"! Which in this case is over the top HYPOCRISY since the game starts with explaining FREEDOM OF SPEECH and NOT CENSORSHIP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.21.45 (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with fascism. WP:OR serves to protect Wikipedia from becoming a fan site by requiring rigorous fact-checking. This is done by using reliable sources. Also, remember that as a matter of principle, Wikipedia doesn't deal with truth, it deals with verifiability! - That information added is from a reliable source. You would be wise to go through WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:No_original_research, and WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not. Those are the biggest relevant guidelines. Now, please stick to discussing matters regarding the article as Wikipedia is not a forum. Eik Corell 06:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

'Story' section[edit]

Am I the only one to be shocked by the massive chunk of text that makes the 'Story' section? Amenel (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I've reverted that section back to an earlier state, which I also edited a bit for clarity. Eik Corell (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


Question[edit]

Would the fact that this game is one of the ones that can be used to enable homebrew by soft methods rather than needing a mod chip be notable enough to note in the article? 208.110.183.9 (talk) 19:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)