Operation Stealth

[toblix]

After finishing Future Wars I thought I'd do the sequel, Operation Stealth. I have such vivid memories from playing this game on the Amiga. Just like with Future Wars I never got farther than the first couple of screens. Not because of a frustrating action sequence, though, but because the pirated copy I had was bad, and always crashed. I still played it lots of times, though, and thought the feeling of the game was fantastic. I got further this time around though, but gave up after everything quickly turned to shit. It seems Delphine felt the pure adventure parts of their games weren't actiony enough.

Anyway, the opening parts of the game, arriving at the airport in South America, opening hidden compartments in toilet stalls, walking around town... it may sound lame, but it feels really good. Someone should make a modern secret agent game that's not about combat or sniping, but about international espionage, hotel suites and airport toilet stalls.

[SometingStupid]

I have never played either of said games, but I agree with you.

I would like to see a game with actual stealth and espionage mechanics, as opposed to Splinter Cells generic, "stay out of the line of sight and you're fine" style.

However, I would like to see a truely quite good, online stealth FPS. I've yet to try Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood which might have some stealthy multiplayer, but from what I've heard so far, it's not quite what I want it to be.

[toblix]

Less sneaking from crate to crate in Russian missile installations, though, and more drugging a colonel's breakfast sausages to steal his invitations for a costume party and then having your beautiful female partner who'll later turn out to have an agenda of her very own distract the party guests by performing a song and dance in the music room so you can sneak upstairs to search the filing cabinets in the host's office for clues, maybe an address.

[Tanukitsune]

I told you it was terrible.... I know my terrible games!

There have been other spy adventure games... I don't remember how good they were, but Spycraft and KGB had no action sequences as far as I remember...

I think KGB was kinda mediocre?

[ThunderPeel2001]

Less sneaking from crate to crate in Russian missile installations, though, and more drugging a colonel's breakfast sausages to steal his invitations for a costume party and then having your beautiful female partner who'll later turn out to have an agenda of her very own distract the party guests by performing a song and dance in the music room so you can sneak upstairs to search the filing cabinets in the host's office for clues, maybe an address.

Metal Gear Diplomat!

I think KGB was kinda mediocre?

Also known as "Conspiracy" on CD-Rom (and featuring newly shot video of Donald Sutherland)... I actually thought it was ok. Pretty damn dark and adult, and I never got very far, but it looked promising.

[ThunderPeel2001]

This review does a good job of summing up my experience with KGB/Conspiracy. It's an interesting game, to be sure:

The Good

KGB, or Conspiracy, as it was named on the CD-ROM version I had back in the days, is a political thriller with murder, conspiracies(duh!) and lots of shabby affairs as main ingredients. I might as well say it right away, the story/plot is great. The story, and the very original(but difficult) "puzzles" are what makes you keep on playing despite the flaws the game has. The player has an immense freedom in what he can do, although you have to do the right things in the right order, or youäll die or fail(usually die). But the fact that you do not get many clues and can investigate for your own, trusting your own investigating abilities, makes it feel as the game is very open, when in fact it is not. It actually feels as if you are a spy caught in a very confusing web of lies, conspiracies, murder, snuff-videos and corruption, desperately trying to both survive and to find the truth about what is going on. I really like the way the plot takes turns and twists and forces the player to be attentive and not only solve the "puzzles" but also listen to what the character have to say in order to figure out who to trust and who is trying to fool you. In other words, the game is more involving "story-wise" than "puzzle-wise", and to me that is a good thing. I write "puzzles" in brackets because there are no traditional puzzles in this game. As Rukov, a fresh KGB-agent trying to discover corruption inside the KGB, the "puzzles" are really something more than just solve boring "put the egg in the hat and use it on the banana"-puzzles. In this game you spy, use surveillance equipment, you decode messages, follow suspects, interrogate people, and above all, you manipulate and use all of your diplomatic skills to get out of the many precarious situations you find yourself in. It's a very intelligent game, and it demands a lot from the player. The characters are also good, and the story is definitely not suitable for children. This is a real dirty story that takes place in the Soviet Union and it's full of corruption and death. Another both good and bad aspect of the game is how time moves. The clock is always ticking on, and you should do certain things before certain times and so on. This is sometimes a good way to make the game feel more realistic. But it is not only good...

The Bad

First of all, the graphics aren't very good at all. It's not appalling to look at, but it's not very good looking either. On the CD-ROM version you can get hints from Rukov's dead father, played by Donald Sutherland. I like Donald very much, which is why I really hated seeing him in this boring, very "brown" role, with a silly accent and a beard, repeating the same hints over and over again. The biggest problem, however, is the difficulty of the game. It's more than challenging, it is frustratingly difficult. Sometimes you have no idea what you should do, and Donald "hints" that you are doing just fine, and then five minutes later, without knowing what you have done wrong, Donald tells you that you have failed and that you should start over. Yes, people, this is the worst part of the game. If you do not do things in the right order, and if you are not in the right places at the right times, you fail. Often you don't even realise that you have failed, so check carefully before you save because it is very frustrating to save a game just to find out that you have blown it and have to start all over from the beginning of the chapter. There is a function that allows you to backtrack a little while, but this doesn't work well at all, and all too often it does not backtrack long enough to allow the player to correct the mistake, in which case you have to start over. Extremely annoying. As long as we're talking about failing, there are way too many ways to die. Sometimes you do not even realise that you have written your own death sentence. If you say one thing wrong to a CIA agent that you meet, he will snipe you when you leave the building, while you may think that you have done well and saved(you do a lot of investigating in the hotel you meet the agent in), you go outside and you just die, and there is nothing you can do about it but start over. I didn't even know who killed me or why the first times it happened to me. This is just downright idiotic and without these disturbing elements the gameplay would rise considerably. It is frustrating enough that you often find yourself in situations where you have no idea what the hell you are supposed to do. A game should not leave the player clueless to what the goals are, if the player are clueless it should be to how to reach these goals. It is very common that you wander around aimlessly, hoping to stumble upon the right path(but mostly you'll hear Donald telling you to start over..AAAARGH). This arbitrariness of the game is very frustrating and it feels very unfair to constantly fail or be killed despite the fact that you have been doing so well and found a lot of clues, just because you should have done something else first (which the game did not hint about at all).

The Bottom Line

Although the game is very difficult due to it's lack of clues on what you should do and why, the games advantages are stronger than the flaws. It feels realistic, open and the story is very good and full of intrigues, twists and turns, and the end is both surprising and quite good. If you can endure the frustrating difficulty (use the hints a lot) it's in the end a very rewarding game. Try it out with and open mind.

[Kolzig]

KGB was so grindlingly difficult that I'm amazed that I managed to play through it once in the 90's. I don't want to play it again as it will propably feel like the worst game that I've ever played. At least now I can just treasure it as a game I "liked" and played a long time ago.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Kolzig

[Tanukitsune]

Well, mediocre means just O.K., although it doesn't sound as nice as just O.K....

Difficulty in adventure games are the worst kind of difficulty, in normal games, you just have to try harder, but in adventure games you have find out what on Earth were they thinking when they made this puzzle.

[brkl]

KGB was awesome, trust RPS.

[Kolzig]

The feeling in the game was really nice, but I got really destroyed by the Sierra style gaming that you can die at any point and many times you could not even avoid to fail and die.

In a way I would still like to play it again actually, but not the original floppy version that I played back in the day. I'd like to see the Donald Sutherland CD version instead.

[brkl]

I don't know, I felt the uncertainty and sense of danger added a lot.

[ThunderPeel2001]

This sounds like an interesting game to pull out again. I do remember the frustration, but I also kind of like the idea of it being so "hard edged". Still, the idea of saying the wrong thing in the beginning of the game and then being unable to finish it several hours later does not appeal.

Still, it's sitting in my oversized wallet of "interesting games/classics that I really should play", right next to Last Express and Uplink, so maybe I'll give it a go.

Well, mediocre means just O.K., although it doesn't sound as nice as just O.K....

That's because you can add inflection to "OK". It can mean "disappointing" right the way through "average" to "not bad". You can't make "mediocre" sound positive

[brkl]

It's divided into segments. The most you'll have to play over is the one you're in.

[circadianwolf]

Yeah, I think in KGB's case the Sierra-style bullshit at least fits the Kafka-esque atmosphere.

I had a similar feeling with STALKER's initial terrible bugginess--it felt appropriate given that the world was one in which everything was rusting, broken, and liable to fall apart at any moment.

Doesn't exactly excuse them, but it's interesting.

[ThunderPeel2001]

It's divided into segments. The most you'll have to play over is the one you're in.

That's great to know! So if I make it to the next chapter, I'm good? Excellent!

I booted it up last night and actually ended up really enjoying it. Sure, I had to backtrack a few times, but I got into the atmosphere more and paid more attention than I had previously. I also cranked up the "Donald Sutherland hints" to max, and kept checking what he recommended when I got stuck. Definitely helpful in understanding how the game wants you to play.

Has anyone else got a copy? It'd be fun to compare notes with another first-timer.

Edited December 3, 2010 by ThunderPeel2001

[brkl]

Glad to hear you're enjoying it. It's a few years since I played this through, but considering how much I usually hate the Sierra-style deaths it's surprising I did. Somehow it works in this game.