
Originally Posted by
chadeboi
rohdrunner,
I may be in a minority here, but I'm one of those old-school gamers, I guess, who is concerned only with single-player gameplay. I really couldn't care less about multiplayer-related stuff, and I really don't understand the gaming community's obsession with multiplayer. Everywhere I look, it's "server" this, "map" that, etc. For me, the ONLY reason I ever buy, play, and enjoy squad-based tactical shooters like Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, SWAT 4, Operation: Flashpoint, Brothers in Arms, etc., is the . . . well . . . squad-based tactical gameplay in the single-player modes. Rainbow Six, for example, has always been about the adventures of the international counter-terrorist team established by Clancy as well as the squad mechanics that come in the game. Same goes for Ghost Recon and the others. These games have never attracted me because of team deathmatch, capture the flag, and other multiplayer modes that are offered.
Thus, I agree with the sentiment that Rainbow 6: Patriots should not go the route of Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, but ONLY in the sense that Rainbow 6 should retain the squad-based tactical elements that set the SINGLE-PLAYER campaign apart from ALL other first-person shooters. Can I command my squad with lots of tactical orders? Can I breach and clear rooms with my squad in different ways? Can I choose and customize the gear and weapons of my character and my squadmates before each mission? If I can do all these things, then I am totally satisfied with this game. Multiplayer stuff just doesn't matter to me. And I wish more people saw things from my perspective.