Have to disagree with the score

Avatar image for REfan1987
REfan1987

327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#1 REfan1987
Member since 2005 • 327 Posts

I bought Sniper Elite just a week ago, and I have to say that I'm very impressed with the gameplay mechanics. It really takes me back to the days of Socom on the PS2. Intense stealth that you can literally spend a couple of hours per mission on. Crouching, proning, stealth takedowns, silenced weapons... I love it. And yet, Gamespot just considers it an "ok" game. To me, a score of 6 spells bad news, 7 is okay if you're into the genre, and it goes up from there.

Anyway, I read the review, and I'm pretty disappointed with some of the comments they gave. Before I start, let me say that I have been reading GS reviews for years (this account was created in '05) and their writers are almost always spot-on. But this one I didn't agree with. Have we gotten too used to the Call of Duty style, spray and pray, "run around like a chicken with your head cut off" type of shooters? The review states,

Regrettably, you're more often faced with tedious stealth sections than the extended sniping segments that make the game so captivating. Levels are littered with soldiers who perk up as soon as you fire off a noisy round, and since you're about as flimsy as any single enemy on screen, clearing the map with a silenced pistol or a quick flip of the knife is often the most intelligent route to success.

Being stealthy takes time! So yes, it's tedious. That would be true of any other stealth shooter. I will say, some of the maps in SE3 are pretty big (Halfaya Pass, for example), but I enjoyed each and every Welrod kill or stealth takedown. The review also calls the game "a chore". That's right. The person that wrote the review would probably rather be doing their dishes than play this game. What a kick to the face! I thought it was a very one-sided review, probably from someone who's more used to modern, fully automatic FPSes. Which brings me to my next point...

How is the piece of @#$% that is CoD: Ghosts (8) rated higher than SE3 (6)?

I really don't see any huge differences between this game and the Socom series of the PS2 era (other than a different scene, WWII, and better graphics) - a series which was rated much more fairly. At any rate, I think SE deserved a 7 at least. I will agree that the relocate feature is fundamentally bugged and most of the time annoys the CRAP out of me, but otherwise - a solid stealth shooter.

Thanks, looking forward to other players' feedback.

Avatar image for krashoverride
krashoverride

92

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2  Edited By krashoverride
Member since 2009 • 92 Posts

I've played the hell out of this game since its release and I am thoroughly enjoying it. I have just beaten in on Authentic difficulty Solo and can honestly say that is was a great gaming experience. Each level does take plenty of time to clear, but that is half the fun. There was a sense of accomplishment when I was able to sneak or clear to a sniping point where I can mask my shots, then strategically take enemies out.

I finished the CoOp campaign on Marksman also, and can say that the true way to play this is on Authentic, without any assists. It is definitely a difficult game on this mode, and does require patience, and scoping out areas before you move or take a shot.

The relocation is the same as many other games such as Splinter Cell Conviction and even MGS5. In reality, when an enemy spots a shooter, I don't think they would ever give up as soon as they lose sight-but it is still only a game. My only gripe is that the enemies on the levels should have been randomly respawed, instead of in the same spot on every play through.

For anyone who enjoys, slow-paced shooters, do not pass this up. There is much more to the game than this review states.