David Sears removal a mistake. | Forums

[sameer_monier]

Maybe, though I never really cared for Socom in the first place either. Like the original Ghost Recon, Socom wouldn't be seen as no more realistic than a lot of the games today that are seen as arcade in nature, in fact, they aren't. At the time those games may have been realistic, but not at all by today's standards, especially if you compare it to games that you can truly call realistic at the time like Arma. People like to pretend that Socom and Ghost Recon have stood the test of time, as if they are really something special, but they aren't. So personally, Sears being the lead wasn't all that reassuring in the first place, and apparently, it wasn't to many other fans either, when they saw the target footage, his "vision" for the game.

well that's your opinion, I always think having a developer with a good background assuring, that's how I feel, as for the target footage it wasn't really gameplay, but within it showed some cool things, like you have to peek to see around corners, dynamic cover, better repelling, strong story,......etc etc

[Dcopymope]

well that's your opinion, I always think having a developer with a good background assuring, that's how I feel, as for the target footage it wasn't really gameplay, but within it showed some cool things, like you have to peek to see around corners, dynamic cover, better repelling, strong story,......etc etc

And yet, nothing resembling what Rainbow Six is supposed to be all about, you know, like strategy. Sure, it may have a strong story, but in the end, nobody plays a Rainbow Six game for its story anymore than Arma 2 or Battlefield 3. The story for these games were never anything special. The gameplay is whats going to make or break Rainbow Six. A more proper person to be the lead designer of Rainbow Six would be someone whose been with the project since the first three games, the real Rainbow Six games, not this Sears guy, he means nothing to me in relation to Rainbow Six. He may have a good resume to most, but when talking about Rainbow Six, I don't care for the guy. He had no business being the lead designer in the first place. If Ubi Soft is genuine about bringing back what Rainbow Six used to be about, or even "finding a middle ground" between old school and new school as you say, then we should be hoping that they hire someone whose been with Rainbow Six from the beginning, someone with actual experience with Rainbow Six, not just some noobish outsider with a good resume. This brings up another point, where is the logic in the confidence people had for Sears being the lead? Of all the people they could have picked with experience developing Rainbow Six, they pick Sears, what a joke.

[sameer_monier]

And yet, nothing resembling what Rainbow Six is supposed to be all about, you know, like strategy. Sure, it may have a strong story, but in the end, nobody plays a Rainbow Six game for its story anymore than Arma 2 or Battlefield 3. The story for these games were never anything special. The gameplay is whats going to make or break Rainbow Six. A more proper person to be the lead designer of Rainbow Six would be someone whose been with the project since the first three games, the real Rainbow Six games, not this Sears guy, he means nothing to me in relation to Rainbow Six. He may have a good resume to most, but when talking about Rainbow Six, I don't care for the guy. He had no business being the lead designer in the first place. If Ubi Soft is genuine about bringing back what Rainbow Six used to be about, or even "finding a middle ground" between old school and new school as you say, then we should be hoping that they hire someone whose been with Rainbow Six from the beginning, someone with actual experience with Rainbow Six, not just some noobish outsider with a good resume. This brings up another point, where is the logic in the confidence people had for Sears being the lead? Of all the people they could have picked with experience developing Rainbow Six, they pick Sears, what a joke.

The problem is you won't be getting the old R6 style, it is not the call of a developer, it is the call of Ubi itself, I love gameplay as much as the next guy, but a story-less game for me is a turn off, there are very few games I put up with, especially FPS, that's why I like games like Resistance rather than BF/COD, R got real character, not some stupid hand holding guy who is silent and just nod.

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.

[Dcopymope]

The problem is you won't be getting the old R6 style, it is not the call of a developer, it is the call of Ubi itself, I love gameplay as much as the next guy, but a story-less game for me is a turn off, there are very few games I put up with, especially FPS, that's why I like games like Resistance rather than BF/COD, R got real character, not some stupid hand holding guy who is silent and just nod.

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.

The more we discuss this game, the more I'm not buying into any of it. The target footage was made over a year ago as they said, which means the game was already well into development, well before 2011, otherwise they wouldn't have discussed the game in as much detail as they did the moment they announced it. So instead of actually showing us gameplay footage, they give us the sh!tty target footage, his "vision". For the most part, what you saw in the target footage is what we're going to get, and it was anything but tactical. The garage scenario itself didn't impress me all that much, for the most part, it didn't sound any more tactical than Vegas, just with new cheat gadgets. I still have a grain of hope for this game, but I'm expecting to be sorely disappointed come E3.

[shobhit7777777]

Sorry buddy, but we have no guarantee of quality or quantity by feeding the horse before it pulls the buggy. Let us know if it turns out to be anything worth buying.

I have to agree. All I have seen is a video full of promises...no preliminary Concept Art, no Pitch Document, no elaboration on premise or some core mechanics. Its just a lot of hand waving. I respect the developer and hope to god that he succeeds but if he wants my money he has to show me something more. So I know what I'm investing in.

David Sears:

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.

The more we discuss this game, the more I'm not buying into any of it. The target footage was made over a year ago as they said, which means the game was already well into development, well before 2011, otherwise they wouldn't have discussed the game in as much detail as they did the moment they announced it. So instead of actually showing us gameplay footage, they give us the sh!tty target footage, his "vision". For the most part, what you saw in the target footage is what we're going to get, and it was anything but tactical. The garage scenario itself didn't impress me all that much, for the most part, it didn't sound any more tactical than Vegas, just with new cheat gadgets. I still have a grain of hope for this game, but I'm expecting to be sorely disappointed come E3.

The target footage was leaked. They weren't intending to release it for at least another couple of weeks. Also do you think that they would show you pre-alpha footage in 2010 when then game is to be released in 2012? That is not how game development works.

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

[sameer_monier]

I have to agree. All I have seen is a video full of promises...no preliminary Concept Art, no Pitch Document, no elaboration on premise or some core mechanics. Its just a lot of hand waving. I respect the developer and hope to god that he succeeds but if he wants my money he has to show me something more. So I know what I'm investing in.

David Sears:

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.



The target footage was leaked. They weren't intending to release it for at least another couple of weeks. Also do you think that they would show you pre-alpha footage in 2010 when then game is to be released in 2012? That is not how game development works.

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

Totally Agree.

[Dcopymope]

The target footage was leaked. They weren't intending to release it for at least another couple of weeks.

Or so they want you to believe.

Also do you think that they would show you pre-alpha footage in 2010 when then game is to be released in 2012? That is not how game development works.

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.

I never said I was expecting them to show anything in 2010. I said I was expecting them to show real gameplay footage in November of last year, the month they actually announced the game. The last R6 game was released four years ago, that's a lot of time to work on any game, and the only thing they can give us is target footage that they insultingly claim was going to be "leaked" the same month that they were planning on announcing the game anyway. It would take a huge leap of faith for me to believe it, as a lot of people didn't. As for your vain optimism for the game, I'll believe it when I see it. In fact, given that we're talking about Ubi Soft, I still may not believe it until close to the games release, given what they did with Ghost Recon Future Soldier and SC Conviction. So I wouldn't show too much optimism even if you do happen to be impressed with the E3 presentation.

[shobhit7777777]

Or so they want you to believe.

I never said I was expecting them to show anything in 2010. I said I was expecting them to show real gameplay footage in November of last year, the month they actually announced the game. The last R6 game was released four years ago, that's a lot of time to work on any game, and the only thing they can give us is target footage that they insultingly claim was going to be "leaked" the same month that they were planning on announcing the game anyway. It would take a huge leap of faith for me to believe it, as a lot of people didn't. As for your vain optimism for the game, I'll believe it when I see it. In fact, given that we're talking about Ubi Soft, I still may not believe it until close to the games release, given what they did with Ghost Recon Future Soldier and SC Conviction. So I wouldn't show too much optimism even if you do happen to be impressed with the E3 presentation.

I'm just going by the statements and information released dude. There's being skeptical and then there is downright paranoid pessimism.

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.

[StealthR1]

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.

[shobhit7777777]

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.

Well...any video will look like scripted run and gun...the point of the target footage IS to display a tight and highly scripted scenario. You're basing all of your criticisms on one target video. Also did you not read my earlier post? Did you even bother to READ the info released about R6? The GI article? They go in plenty detail regarding the mechanics of the game especially the tactical and stealth aspects.
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.