Im done with Rainbow Six (R6 Veteran) [Archive]

View Full Version : Im done with Rainbow Six (R6 Veteran)

NicePCUser

01-11-2008, 10:51 PM

First of all, you guys should read a book, it's a book published in 1998. It's about a group of men who took down terrorist with careful planning, advanced technology and team organization. The name of this book was called "Rainbow Six".

The video game based after the book was EXACTLY what Rainbow Six was intended to be. It was also released in 1998.

Today, Rainbow Six is a disaster. It's NOTHING like Rainbow Six and it should be renamed... Today's Rainbow Six game should be called "Army of Three" Because thats exactly what you're doing. You're 3 guys running around killing Terrorist in Las Vegas. NOTHING like what Rainbow Six is about, NOTHING like what would happen in the real world.

Rainbow Six was great up to Raven Shield. Now UBISoft just uses the name "Rainbow Six" for this game because "Rainbow Six" had a STRONG market once. Back when it was based of a book, and not an "Army of Three".

By the way, If you didn't like the original Rainbow Six, then you're NOT going like real world hostage situations, because working as a team and careful planning is what made the first "Rainbow Six" and its predecessors a masterpiece in FPS gaming!

DreamMarine

01-11-2008, 11:37 PM

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

GSG_9_Rage

01-12-2008, 01:07 AM

He has a point.

JReactor

01-12-2008, 03:02 AM

ok thanks for the rant

oorlogshond

01-12-2008, 07:18 AM

And nor will the casual gamer buy this game.

Too much competition. Right now the only threat is COD4 and it's a big one too. What if IW comes with a free map pack right before Vegas 2?

PLUS there will be two other mayor titles who will appeal to the same type of gamer: Army of Two(release date march 4) and Battlefield Bad Company(released somewhere in Q1 2008).

And these games are actually offering something completely new and are not some glorified expansion pack.

But whatever, who knows.

One thing is for sure though, i will definitely not buy Vegas 2. After watching the teaser, trailer and interviews it's pretty clear there is nothing this game has to offer to the hardcore player. I think i'll stick with COD4 untill we have Armed Assualt 2, Operation Flashpoint 2, Rogue Warrior and last but not least Ground Branch. All are going to be released for the console(and PC) and all are hardcore combat sims. Ground Branch is probably the most interesting title to old school RB6 fans since people who are working on this title also worked on the older RB6 titles.

RawKryptonite

01-12-2008, 07:32 AM

I'm looking forward to ArmA2, OpFlashpoint and Rogue Warrior too. Not sure they'll be out any time soon, but maybe by the Fall.
I'm not convinced GB will come to console. As much as they say they'd "like to" or plan to, I don't see that commitment or interest in doing so. Everything they discuss is pretty much just PC oriented, so I think the console players that DID go there have lost interest out of neglect.

oorlogshond

01-12-2008, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by RawKryptonite:
I'm looking forward to ArmA2, OpFlashpoint and Rogue Warrior too. Not sure they'll be out any time soon, but maybe by the Fall.
I'm not convinced GB will come to console. As much as they say they'd "like to" or plan to, I don't see that commitment or interest in doing so. Everything they discuss is pretty much just PC oriented, so I think the console players that DID go there have lost interest out of neglect.

Hmm i dunno but is see plenty of people there who both play on PC and console.

This from the FAQ on their site (http://www.blackfootstudios.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=525)

3. What platforms will it be for?
The primary platform for the title is PC, but an XBOX 360 version is also planned (360 version is publisher dependant).

To me this sounds that the release for the 360 is very likely. The only obstacle here is finding a publisher.

We will see, i have good hopes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tacamo

01-12-2008, 07:50 AM

It would be quite time consuming to properly produce the game for multiple platforms. In order to make the Deus Ex franchise more accessible to the console market they ended up significantly dumbed down the game on the PC side. Sad that a classic game was followed by such trash.

oorlogshond

01-12-2008, 07:58 AM

Originally posted by Tacamo:
It would be quite time consuming to properly produce the game for multiple platforms. In order to make the Deus Ex franchise more accessible to the console market they ended up significantly dumbed down the game on the PC side. Sad that a classic game was followed by such trash.

It worked rather well with Ghost Recon 1 and it's expansion packs.

Apart from maybe some GFX there really is no need for dumbing down anything(gameplay wise). Dumbing down is done because publishers want big sales. This problem is platform independent. There are as many arcade games on PC as there are for console.

Look at Gran Turismo, it's not even available for the PC yet it is THE most hardcore racing game ever. And extremely succesfull.

Tacamo

01-12-2008, 08:12 AM

The case I listed was probably nothing more than laziness and as you stated to make sales. Games shouldn't be dumbed down, but definitely should be tailored to their platform be it handheld, console or PC. Good ports have been done, but it seems as if a no-frills "meet the marketing team deadline" schedule vs. releasing a complete product seems to be popular with most publishers. Unfortunately adding mechanics, control schemes that work on the platform and cleaning up sloppy code took a back seat to Pretty trailers, high rez preview pics and overly aggressive production cycles.

AntiPersonnel

01-12-2008, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by Tacamo:
It would be quite time consuming to properly produce the game for multiple platforms. In order to make the Deus Ex franchise more accessible to the console market they ended up significantly dumbed down the game on the PC side. Sad that a classic game was followed by such trash.

that is entirely dependent on the publisher. which is why blackfoot stated that xbox360 port depends on the publisher. they clearly dont want to dumb down the game.

thats not to say that a console version of GB is definite, because as we all know finding a decent console publisher that isnt a heartless greed machine is going to be difficult to find.

as stated, both Ghost Recon original as well as the first 2 Rainbow titles ported to console well IMO. only a downgrade in graphics. enough of the key features and gameplay were there to make the console versions every bit as classic as the PC ones.

Jermtheory

01-12-2008, 11:50 AM

It worked rather well with Ghost Recon 1 and it's expansion packs.

Apart from maybe some GFX there really is no need for dumbing down anything(gameplay wise). Dumbing down is done because publishers want big sales. This problem is platform independent. There are as many arcade games on PC as there are for console.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

snapkracklepop

01-12-2008, 11:58 AM

I'm very interested in GB. While they have focused primarily on the pc, that is because they haven't nailed down a 360 version and they did say "PC first 360 second" which makes pc players very happy. I think they might have a problem finding a publisher who doesn't want to dumb down the game though. I could see a publisher wanting it to compete with the tom clancy games. "Just add in a cover system and a crosshair along with only two teammates who you have almost no control over and can't get anything right, and the game is perfect". That being said, there are alot of good tac-sims coming up for pc and consoles. So, late 08 should be a good time for tactical gamers. Than the ubi forums will probably be left arcade players.

XyZspineZyX

01-12-2008, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by AntiPersonnel:
as stated, both Ghost Recon original as well as the first 2 Rainbow titles ported to console well IMO. only a downgrade in graphics. enough of the key features and gameplay were there to make the console versions every bit as classic as the PC ones.

Personally i would say any apparently graphic differences between GR PC & Xbox was entirely dependant on the PC you had, for me the Xbox version was clearly better than on my PC but no doubt better PC's would've given the PC version a better finish.

There were very few differences between GR PC & Xbox, the most obvious was the MP map sizes which were chopped about a bit to compensate for 16 player max online opposed to PC's 32, any other differences were barely noticable and trust me I say this with a brother who had excellent and full knowledge of the PC version and picked the 2 apart in great detail

Jermtheory

01-12-2008, 12:09 PM

GR/GRIT are proof that a realistic tactical shooter can not only be done on the consoles,but be successfull as well.

Sonkev

01-12-2008, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by NicePCUser:
First of all, you guys should read a book, it's a book published in 1998. It's about a group of men who took down terrorist with careful planning, advanced technology and team organization. The name of this book was called "Rainbow Six".

The video game based after the book was EXACTLY what Rainbow Six was intended to be. It was also released in 1998.

Today, Rainbow Six is a disaster. It's NOTHING like Rainbow Six and it should be renamed... Today's Rainbow Six game should be called "Army of Three" Because thats exactly what you're doing. You're 3 guys running around killing Terrorist in Las Vegas. NOTHING like what Rainbow Six is about, NOTHING like what would happen in the real world.

Rainbow Six was great up to Raven Shield. Now UBISoft just uses the name "Rainbow Six" for this game because "Rainbow Six" had a STRONG market once. Back when it was based of a book, and not an "Army of Three".

By the way, If you didn't like the original Rainbow Six, then you're NOT going like real world hostage situations, because working as a team and careful planning is what made the first "Rainbow Six" and its predecessors a masterpiece in FPS gaming!

And we have been trying ever since to get them to change the game style back and they WONT, they DO NOT listen to anyone who made the series what it is today. It really pisses me off, and If I was company owner I would (@*&HIJOH(D*#(&(&#(& (blocked out of hatred)

I would fix all this ****.

Doc-uk

01-12-2008, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by NicePCUser:
First of all, you guys should read a book, it's a book published in 1998. It's about a group of men who took down terrorist with careful planning, advanced technology and team organization. The name of this book was called "Rainbow Six".

The video game based after the book was EXACTLY what Rainbow Six was intended to be. It was also released in 1998.

Today, Rainbow Six is a disaster. It's NOTHING like Rainbow Six and it should be renamed... Today's Rainbow Six game should be called "Army of Three" Because thats exactly what you're doing. You're 3 guys running around killing Terrorist in Las Vegas. NOTHING like what Rainbow Six is about, NOTHING like what would happen in the real world.

Rainbow Six was great up to Raven Shield. Now UBISoft just uses the name "Rainbow Six" for this game because "Rainbow Six" had a STRONG market once. Back when it was based of a book, and not an "Army of Three".

By the way, If you didn't like the original Rainbow Six, then you're NOT going like real world hostage situations, because working as a team and careful planning is what made the first "Rainbow Six" and its predecessors a masterpiece in FPS gaming!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
Great post NicePCUser, I 2 am a R6 Veteran, and i totaly agree with every thing you say
regards
Doc

TW_Night_Fox

01-12-2008, 02:54 PM

+1 to the OP!

RawKryptonite

01-12-2008, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Jermtheory:
GR/GRIT are proof that a realistic tactical shooter can not only be done on the consoles,but be successfull as well.

Nah, all GR and Rainbow games are compromise games, bringing a healthy dose of arcade with them. Floating disembodied crosshairs aren't realistic. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif It would be nice if they bent more towards realism again though, instead of marching further to arcade.

AA:ROAS is the only realistic tactical shooter on a console that comes to mind, maybe Operation Flashpoint Elite but I couldn't stand to look at it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Jermtheory

01-12-2008, 06:10 PM

i loved ROAS but i thought OGR/GRIT were still more realistic in many ways(especially the campaign).

other than the floating cross-hairs and the lack of a gun model,i cant think anything i didnt like about them.

edit-do we really have the exact same number of posts? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

papert1ger007

01-12-2008, 06:42 PM

I never played the original Rainbow Six but I did play Rogue Spear on my pc years ago. Was it similar to that? There was a lot of planning in that game before the action got started.

rogue_tom

01-12-2008, 08:55 PM

rogue spears was the same as rb6 just with more stuff. We got a few more characters, weapons and the interface was better. Also lean was added.

I keep thinking i shouldn't buy vegas 2 because I don't agree with what they've done to rainbow but I buy so many games that i might as well.

There was some talk about making one for the old school pc fanbase so i'm hoping they will go along with that.

BIGZFOOT

01-12-2008, 09:47 PM

You can't base like 5 games on one book

DreamMarine

01-13-2008, 03:04 AM

Of course, you can! In particular, when the game is titled "Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six"... and when the book and the original games were best-selling.

Scorpion1813

01-13-2008, 06:09 AM

I haven't read the book, yet, but what I would do in the situation is have the first game based on the book, and the following sequels based after the book, like... sequels! Sounds logical to me.
Keeping with the original "concept", all that needs to be changed (developed upon) is the story, and "add" new features/content.
They do NOT need to take things out (unless they sucked, but as far as most of us are aware, R6 was awesome). They also do not need to change the gameplay upside-down and back-to-front, when it worked so well in the first place.

Sequels are supposed to be better and improve upon what has already been established. But what happened in Vegas and Lockdown was that the AI was dumbed down. The level designs were extremely dumbed down (if you didn't know where to go you must be under the age of 2 years), the weapons were dumbed down (balanced).

Like I said, sequels are "meant to improve", not the opposite.

EviI_Chaos

01-13-2008, 06:36 AM

I agree. The book and the games aren't similar anymore. However, that isn't at all a reason to boycott Rainbow Six. I've read the book twice, and enjoyed it immensly. I've played through Rainbow Six Vegas 4 times, and also become a Lietenant online, and I enjoyed it immensly. What has happened with the game IS realistic. The lack of good AI isn't as much, but you really do have to use tactics a lot in Rainbow. Also, notice you die many times in Rainbow Six. That's because, due to only having 3 people, it's harder. Besides, in the whole Rainbow Six book, they only went in "weapons free" on terrorists 4 times. I wouldn't want to play a game that short. Yes, the book and game are different. Yes, I still enjoy both.

Also, books and movies are the same exact way. Read and then go see Bridge to Terabithia. That movie changed so much from the book.

EviI_Chaos

01-13-2008, 06:39 AM

And by the way, I completely agree that you can't base 5 games off of one book. Especially when that book only has 5 terrorist encounters, and one is like a prologue. I personally don't want to paly 1 terrorist encounter per game. 1 mission per game would suck.

Scorpion1813

01-13-2008, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by EviI_Chaos:
I personally don't want to play 1 terrorist encounter per game. 1 mission per game would suck.
Which is what Vegas is. In fact. It's in two games. One terrorist encounter in 2 games.
The original Rainbow Six had many different terrorist and rebel groups and about 15 missions (give or take).

Originally posted by EviI_Chaos:
due to only having 3 people, it's harder.
As well as having checkpoints and such things. It really is like an arcade game.

AntiPersonnel

01-13-2008, 08:33 AM

but you really do have to use tactics a lot in Rainbow

i agree that vegas is an enjoyable game to play, but the tactics you use in vegas are not really based on real world counter terrorist tactics.

3 men cannot pull off what the SAS, GIGN or GSG9 pull off in their missions.

in any kind of siege or hostage situation it is a matter of time, so you go in with a full assault team and attack from multiple entry points and floors.

look how many people it took to take back the Iranian embassy in 1980. there were only 5 terrorists, but in any CT operation there is no room for error, you OVER-PREPARE to be on the safe side.

i understand this is "just a game" but so was the older rainbows and the way they had the game set up with the planning phase, you could really do some cool things with multiple entry, combined assaults.

i know thats not what a lot of people want to be forced to do, but i just dont understand why they didnt leave it as an option.

Tacamo

01-13-2008, 11:36 AM

Not too sure on how many SAS were involved in the Iranian Embassy siege I definitely agree that bigger teams with better AI friend and foe is the answer. Overly scripted events and cannon fodder enemies that use magical spawning to outflank you are the trademarks of a generic shooter. Several years ago with the Japanese Embassy incident in Peru there were 14 hostage takers. Probably close to 150 counter terrorist operators stormed the building. So it could be argued the past games with only 8 were too few. Of course home computer power in the near future will not allow for such scenarios.

As far as the games missions being based on one book. Nobody has asked for that. Those who read the book and played the older games know the book's scenarios were exhausted during the first game. New stories were provided for the expansions and sequels, but the core structure of the game remained true to the book. As if each game came from sequels to the Rainbow Six book. Even though the current games use CSI as a reference. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

TDiNozzo

01-13-2008, 01:17 PM

I'm going to be completely, 100% 'I'm tired of arguing' honest. I really like Rainbow Six: Vegas. Yes, it's unrealistic to be able to take a bullet, rest behind a box and heal - yes it's unrealistic that three people would be able to kill hordes of terrorists, but you know what? It's *fun.* Games are supposed to be fun and, while you *are* right about it not being a true Rainbow Six sequel because of its absence of realism, you have to think about this...

How well did Raven Shield really sell? I'm guessing it didn't sell particularly well at all compared to other games that were out at the time. In fact, no matter how many people are actually playing it now or were at the time, I'm willing to bet that it couldn't hold a candle to other more easy to get into titles like Unreal Tournament. It makes sense that after seeing the slumping sales, the company wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot and stick with the same plan - they innovated and changed direction in an effort to bring about their salvation.

As a side effect, this led to them jumping ship to the console because, and this isn't a slight in any way, console games *are* more simplistic and brainless. On the PC, we had the SimCity series, X-Com and other strategy games, and the brain-teasing Thief game. What was on the console? Crash Bandicoot and numerous fighting games. There's nothing wrong with that but, as a rule of thumb, you can expect to find more people willing to accept these arcadey action games on the console than on the PC. It was for this very reason that they released a console-only version of Raven Shield because they weren't selling it so well to that market.

See, there's nothing wrong with Rainbow Six: Vegas - it's the various institutions behind it whose blatant disregard for the communities that put them where they are today that has been the cause of *every* problem we have encountered. Bugs and glitches not being addressed properly, being shoved aside as they attend to their new pet crowd... It makes me angry to think that after so many years of great games, the series' we loved so much is turning into an ever-thinning wisp of smoke before our eyes, and the biggest downer is that the people made a crappy game (Lockdown) that was poorly received by the community and said, 'It's not our fault for making the crappy game, it's your fault that you discovered it was crappy,' and closed the door in my face.

Edit: I was *really* looking forward to Lockdown at the time. Oh, and about the earlier part of the post, even *I* wasn't very excited about Raven Shield when it came out and I didn't even buy it. I got it as a full version game in an Audigy II box and was blown away. I was like, what the heck is this game! It was in the PC Gamer a while back, but this is totally different than what I thought it would be. Maybe it was just me at the time, but something tells me that they didn't market it quite well enough, otherwise you better believe I would've bought it in a heartbeat.

R0CKY

01-13-2008, 01:27 PM