Talk:Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Essentials

NSA

In 2004, Sam joined Third Echelon. They didn't say if was working for NSA, or not (before 2004). Cavenba^{talk to me} 20:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

NSA before 2004

In the first Splinter Cell they do say that they brought him out of retirement from the NSA to join the newly formed 3rd Echelon.

level descriptions

is there anywhere where a there's a description of all the levels? i know that it features mostly levels from the previous games. but i was wondering which ones, and which ones are new. ColdFusion650 12:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The official website for Essentials has a list of the "new levels", and some screenies.69.226.99.154 01:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Splinter Cell 5?

My brother keeps arguing saying that this is the 5th one. Is it?

No. For one, this came out before Double Agent (although I believe it was originally planned for simultaneous release) and the devolpers have said in a magazine that 5 would come after Double Agent. Lord of Light 12:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

   If loading the game on PC, it refers to Chaos Theory as "Splinter Cell 3" and Double Agent as "Splinter Cell 4". It is not the fifth one becouse it gust gives more background for dubble agent

I think that it is the fifth game in the series because it takes place after the fourth game. Cavenba^{talk to me} 01:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Retconned?

I don't recall reading that the story's been retconned, and it doesn't have a citation. It needs one, or that paragraph should probably be removed.One Star Bandit 06:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Multiplayer

Hey what's multiplayer like? I don't see anything on it, even though the article claims it has multiplayer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.230.33 (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:SCEssentials.jpg

Image:SCEssentials.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Very bad article

This article needs to be cleaned up badly. The section marked story is basically a review of the game, full of opinion and speculation, nothing is cited.

"And like most greatest-hits albums, it sucks"

I don't know who wrote this, but it needs fixing. I don't have the time to do it myself, but thought I could do worse than highlight how badly in need of a overhaul this article is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gapperjack (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Canon

I've tried to make it neutral in regards to "canon" discussion. I notice people have been trying to imply that Essentials as a whole is entirely non-canon.

Has Ubisoft ever discussed "Canon" of the series? Is there any quotes from Ubisoft declaring this specifically or is it just fan speculation? Citations are needed before use loaded terminology. Inconsistencies in the story is not enough to declare something "non-canon" without published proof from the producers themselves (interview or what not).137.222.114.243 (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, besides a difference in graphics (game engine), the aspect of the story that Sam Fisher chooses to shoot Lambert to keep his cover is told both in PSP and through one of the choices in the Nextgen game. Conviction just confirms something Essentials original stated. After Double Agent was released the arguement was because you could choose to "save" Lambert, then that invalidated the fact that you were forced to kill him in Essentials. Its nitpicking to assume because they are portrayed somewhat different that it invalidates Essentials as a whole. But the true fact is that both state the same thing.137.222.114.243 (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)