
I thought Ubisoft had an awesome idea. I thought they had morphed Splinter Cell from a third-person stealth-action shooter to a third-person stealth-action shooter with moral consequences. Sadly, they did not.
I'm talking about the last in the Splinter Cell series of games, "Double Agent". Yes, I know, it came out in 2006. Yes, I know it is only the third-newest Splinter Cell game. That's just how long it takes games to get cheap enough for me to buy them.
OK, so what was I talking about in the first paragraph? You see, in this latest Splinter Cell, they employed a sort of "choice" system on various decisions. One choice moves you closer to trust with the Feds, the other closer to trust with the terrorists (who, in neat PC form, are white supremacists). These choices can influence those crappy "in between" videos (ie "You let your friend die!" or "You saved your friend!", etc.). The problem, though, is that when it finally comes down to it (at the last level), you only have ONE choice: to finish the mission on the side of the Feds and defuse the 3 nuclear bombs that have been set in NYC.
"Why?" I ask. Why can I choose to be a despicable person throughout the ENTIRE game, making ALL the "wrong" decisions, but in the end my choice is "defuse or lose" rather than "defuse or let 'er blow."
Perhaps Ubisoft simply felt that giving players the choice to nuke NYC was "too much." Funny, though... they DO allow you to nuke LA and Nashville...


