It’s been a while since I’ve had a game I kept going back to as much as Splinter Cell : Conviction. In fact, I think the last one was GTA Vice City. It puzzles me that a lot of people keep saying that this installment is “more about action than infiltration.”

To me it’s the best by far, thanks to the The Mark & Execute system.

In the original recipe, the stealth gameplay was strictly enforced, to the point of absurdity: It was impossibly hard to shoot someone, and being discovered with your hand in the metaphorical cookie jar almost invariably resulted in Fisher bleeding out on the concrete – even when facing a single, isolated enemy.

I suppose the contrived difficulty was how the developers chose to force the players down a purely stealth path. In the end, it feels unnatural in terms of narrative (Fisher is a super-duper agent who… doesn’t seem to be able to dispatch a single enemy?), but also gameplay (the player feels incredibly potent in some situations, but utterly powerless in others). Also, I’ve never been a fan of stealth games where you can pick out guards one by one without their friends noticing anything. In my world, shit is bound to happen.

Now, fast-forward to SC: Conviction. Detractors have complained that the Mark & Execute ruins the spirit of the game. I can only agree to that if it’s used extensively. When used by a player willing to “play the game,” it makes perfect sense and fixes the aforementioned gameplay/narrative disconnect.

Specifically, I use it as a contingency plan: Say I intend to take down this one guard, but notice two others chatting not far from there. I mark both of them just in case, then perform a silent take-down of some kind on my primary target. If the pair doesn’t see me, then it’s onto the next one and I’m playing the way I would have in SC1. If I get spotted, I don’t die in an utterly absurd way. This strategic approach is (to me) just as important when playing a stealth game than say, creeping in the shadows.

In the end, I think designers always try to create a focused experience – and they should. But sometimes, giving the players some leeway instead of building strict constraints right into the game mechanics can add to the mix. A lot of players are willing to “work” to step into their character’s shoes, which results in a greater involvement.

Which is why I’ve always thought the whole our-protagonist-doesn’t-talk-so-the-player-can-relate-better was bullshit.