As for Sears it's about opinions, I think he was a great choice for the new R6P, and as already said we didn't see the gameplay, but there was the garage scenario were it really fleshed out the tactical experience with more than one solution, the promise was there, Sears knew what he was doing, he didn't turn it into a run and gun game.
People had confidence in Sears not just cause of his resume but from what he talked about, what he promised, there was indeed many things the fans wanted done, but generally speaking he knew what he was doing, and what needs to be done.
Also I believe Ubi is picking people who didn't develop the old TC titles cause they don't want to make the old titles, they want to make something new, anyway I don't think any of that matters, we better wait till E3 to know how is the new guy behind R6P, is he better or worse, how the game looks, only then can we really discuss and see where R6P is going.
He seemed like he had a great hold on the franchise. Under his direction we were seeing some super promising mechanics. Overhauled realistic animations, hardcore gunplay, micro-tactical planning, in-depth Squad ROE commands, smarter Squad AI..I mean you could order a guy to be taken out with a CQC attack, Rapelling 2.0 allowing for more infiltration points, breaching mechanics, a greater emphasis on stealth...I remember one of the devs saying that entire levels could be completed without getting into an exchange of gunfire, Planning mode in MP and squad work emphasis, a larger focus on serious and mature narrative substance.
So yeah...Sears had a pretty good idea of the project.
I am not at all happy at his exit. I just hope that they continue in the direction already set.
R6 was still in paper design and prototype phase. All they would have had was whitebox models and placeholders testing the core mechanics. What they were talking about in the video was the on-paper design. What they WANTED to achieve.
The render footage BTW was basically a powerpoint presentation on steroids for the Ubi execs. A short showcase of the "FEEL" of the game and how it might look and play. The execs won't give two flying ****s about the ability to breach a room from the ceiling or planning a multi-team attack. They want a quick look at the gameplay.
As for tactical...under Sear's direction we were getting a deep micro-tactical planning commands. Which were like a hybrid of Vegas and Raven Shield Go-code commands. If you cared to read more about the game then you'd know that it was designed to give the player full tactical control of a situation and playstyle. You could use stealth to have your team quietly open the door and sneak in to a vantage point as you designated targets, you could have them pop smoke as they enter and then chain it with a movement command. In short you could really come up with complex plans on the fly.
Now consider the Rappell 2.0 and the Breach mechanics...this is major clue that hints at sandbox encounters. So you have multiple tactical options.
If you think that Patriots was going in the wrong direction...then I'd HATE to see your version of an R6 game and I pray you're disappointed at E3 2012
Last edited by shobhit7777777; 03-25-2012 at 09:44 AM.
Last edited by Dcopymope; 03-25-2012 at 01:15 PM.
Regardless of the quality of the target video. The features which were to be added to Patriots were an excellent addition. This was under Sear's direction. Would you disagree that additions of higher order commands, more micro-tactics, better animation and gunplay, smarter AI and a better narrative were 'bad' for the franchise?
I'm not being optimistic...I'm simply stating that David Sear's seemed like he knew what he was doing and was leading R6 into a great direction.
Well I thought the video gameplay looked like ****. It look pre-scripted CoD run and gun. Press space in time to save x and jump out the exploding house, really? It was just lame. Thats why I was so pissed. All these "new features" means nothing if the game sucks. Didn't R6 Lockdown have a ton of new features? How good was that? And then there was his interview, did he mention gameplay at all in it? All he talked about were worthless features and he sounded convinced he was making the ultimate R6 game. From his ideas in MY OPINION they all seems utterly lame. I don't think he knew what was important to the franchise.
They added a layered and sophisticated sequential command system so that you could carry out Raven Shield like mission plans at the spur of the moment and at a more tactical scale.
You're looking at games with Nostalgia Tinted glasses again...Old is gold. Its not the case. The legacy R6 games were SEVERELY lacking in things that really mattered in a CT sim. CQB, micro-tactical commands, breaching options, FLEXIBILITY, squad AI. Vegas dramatically improved all of those. Patriots was bringing MORE of the tactical goodness back. Granted that the level planning was missing...but that feature in itself was NOT the 'Ultimate Measure of Tactical goodness'.
As for Sear's interview...with the slew of information being released in print form...Ubi might have deemed it necessary to talk about the finer points of the game rather than 'Press X to open a command order menu'. If you paid attention to what he said and had the remotest idea of HOW that would translate into gameplay mechanics..you might have appreciated what he was saying.
BTW there is no 'Space in time to save X and jump out of exploding house' moment in the target video. And how else would you propose a method of player input if not by pressing a but.ton?
Narrative is EXTREMELY important from a design standpoint. It decides what your entire game is about and the whole look and feel of it. That is how designers work. I am one. You don't always get a cool mechanic and make a game around it...inspiration often comes from events or instances.
Sear's had an excellent handle on the franchise. He was talking about the roots of the game...back to the BOOK days. I can bet my left but that half of you haven't even read the book. He was talking about the feeling of being a R6 member and how this translated into better animations and how the plot of the book was morally gray instead of B/W. He was talking about real characters.
Add to that the added tactical commands and options...you have a winner of a shooter.
Under his aegis we were seeing a game handle a mature and very contemporary socio-political issue without too much heavy-handedness. Something every serious shooter should strive for.
Worthless? pfft. You wouldn't know good game design if it came up, falcon punched you in the face and then took a dump on it. You can keep archaic and neanderthal design concepts yourself. Thank you very much.