PDA

View Full Version : Why did you guys stop making "clancy" games?



Akedo
05-11-2006, 02:49 AM
change the name to something else.. so that the ppl who are used to the "good" games you guys used to make dont keep wasting our money and get soo frustrated.. i mean dont even call it a rainbow game. name it something else.. its insulting to us AND tom clancy. and real hrt and swat teams. it just hurts to see you guys ruin such a great franchise. sure you guys will make tons more money selling more copies to 11 yr olds and ppl who just cant handle an intense realistic shooter .. but do you really feel right? its such a shame..

Hobbez245
05-11-2006, 11:46 PM
Agree. I know myself and many others feel: If vegas is noob friendly and once again a another ubi letdown....we no longer will buy ubisoft games.

Most companies make BETTER games as series progress...UBI is going backwards. IT is a shame.

Razors-3Dge
05-12-2006, 03:10 AM
I agree, its nothing like the book, they dont act like rainbow six should act!!

capteenix
05-12-2006, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by Razors-3Dge:
I agree, its nothing like the book, they dont act like rainbow six should act!!
how should then they act? Like Chihuahua? Dancing ,yeah?

If tihs is not Rainbow six, then what is it?

Their name IS Rainbow Six and they ARE Attacking TERRORISTs.

you people are dumb, really!

"OMG! HE moves Not like RAinbow SIX member"
"this is not R6 !"
"OMG! He has a P90! That NOT a R6 weapon, this aint R6, change the name!"
"OMG! its 3rd person! this AInt R6, change the name"
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif my biggest laught for months!

"you have changed your T-Shirt Mikael! You are NOT Mikael"

as i said it before: "if this is not Rainbow SIx, then what is it?"

subzero1900
05-12-2006, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by capteenix:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Razors-3Dge:
I agree, its nothing like the book, they dont act like rainbow six should act!!
how should then they act? Like Chihuahua? Dancing ,yeah?

If tihs is not Rainbow six, then what is it?

Their name IS Rainbow Six and they ARE Attacking TERRORISTs.

you people are dumb, really!

"OMG! HE moves Not like RAinbow SIX member"
"this is not R6 !"
"OMG! He has a P90! That NOT a R6 weapon, this aint R6, change the name!"
"OMG! its 3rd person! this AInt R6, change the name"
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif my biggest laught for months!

"you have changed your T-Shirt Mikael! You are NOT Mikael"

as i said it before: "if this is not Rainbow SIx, then what is it?" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

you are really ignorant...is counter strike rainbow six then?...is soldier of fortune rainbow six then....they are attacking terrorists

what we want is a game that ACTUALLLY plays like the old REALISTIC rainbow Six that me and other Hardcore Players want back from Rogue Spear...

not the new generation |2@!N|3()W 6 noob and shoot **** where skill is eliminated from the equation

devilnevercry16
07-17-2006, 03:56 PM
Have you not watched the videos and read the dev diaries? It all points to a new kind of tactical warfare. Ubi Soft can't please every fanboy, because everyone has different tastes. They took the feed back YOU people gave them and made an entirely new entity. It looks superb. i am with you on playing games that are not run and gun and I realize no one wants Lockdown gameplay. Give them a chance man.

Oh yeah and how do you know what isn't worthy of the Tom Clancy name. Make opinions that are not childish and dumb.

Tactical gaming all the way!

Jermtheory
07-17-2006, 04:56 PM
even though i agree with the original poster[and the 2 that followed]to a large extent,i still think the R6 and GR series are the most realistic games your going to find on a console....which is a shame.

i just wish someone out there would make a game as ultra-realistic as possible and not worry about new gimmicks["wallstick/blindfire"] and it being noob friendly.

with the direction both GR and R6 have been going i hope someone steps in to fill the void of what they used to be about,realism.

its a shame we gotta play low budget "buggy" games like Close Combat F2F to get any type of authenticity.

KungFu_CIA
07-17-2006, 06:01 PM
Konami was going to release "The Regiment" for the PS2 and Xbox, but ultimately, it was canceled (probably due to the poor PC sales).

TR beats R6 hands down -- on any platform -- As it is a much more realistic representation of CQB and Counter-Terrorism operations as far as the speed and what it takes to properly clear a room.

The best thing TR does is the game actually trains -- as in teaches the player skills they must use to be able to complete the levels properly -- The player in realistic CQB, room-domination procedures and thereby, makes the player feel like a real (aka virtual) SF Operator, in this case, the British SAS.

R6 fails miserably in its immersion when compard to TR because:

A) On the consoles you are forced to play as the hero-character, Ding Chavez -- Which is the farthest thing from what the original Rainbow Six games were about when they started.

B) The pace at which the missions (in SP) are conducted is entirely off becuase it would have you believe SF Operators creep around and use stealth like MGS, or Splinter-Cell when if you'e ever seen footage of real SWAT, or SF Operators conducting CQB, the whole point is to go in fast and hard to overwhelm and surprise the enemy so they can't mount a counter-attack.

What is funny is R6 console fans would call this "run-and-gun BS", but they would be entirely WRONG because R6 has been perpetuating a false model of CQB operations. Talk about the irony http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Regiment addresses both of these problems on half the budget any of the R6 games have ever had (to my knowledge) and is a superior CQB game as a result.

Also, the big difference between the console and the PC is the console is far more mainstream than the PC and therefore, has to make games which are very easy to pick-up-and-play as the target audience is far less sophisticated in terms of both potential chronological age AND technical know-how (most likely why they are gaming on a console vs. PC). This isn't meant as an insult, this is just statistical data I am relaying.

The ideal situation will be for a developer to come along who can make a complex game within console limitations, but that isn't complex to play. This sounds like an oxymoron, but it is possible as Counter-Strike is a prime example that fits this description.

Jermtheory
07-17-2006, 07:39 PM
TR?...im sure i know the game your talking about[if its a tactical shooter] but im drawing a blank.

i agree with most of your points,however i would say....

hitting hard and fast would typically be the goal.however getting into position and setting up often involves alot of stealth and tactical preparation.

when i think run-n-gun i usually equate it[in its negative aspects]with Halo style runing and gunning with unrealistic accuracy and effectiveness.a SF operator doesnt run into a room tossing grenades and blazing in all directions while at the same time taking multiple hits and not dropping.if the accuracy is realistic and it only takes 1-3or4 hits to drop someone than that in my mind isnt a run-n-gun game.

finally,it seems alot of devs think in the same generalities as you mentioned when it comes to pc versus console's.which is why us console gamers get stuck with alot of arcadey **** while the pc often gets more sophisticated play.it seems to me with the base that consoles have it would still be lucrative to cater to a more discerning audience.i thought GR and GRIT had very realistic gameplay[atleast for a console game]and if im not mistaken they sold very well.

KungFu_CIA
07-17-2006, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by Jermtheory:
TR?...im sure i know the game your talking about[if its a tactical shooter] but im drawing a blank.

It was never released officially in the U.S. You can order it online from e-vendors in the UK.



i agree with most of your points,however i would say....

hitting hard and fast would typically be the goal.however getting into position and setting up often involves alot of stealth and tactical preparation.

Here is a vital element the R6 games don't do very well and that is on the one hand they portray the point at which Rainbow would be called in is the time when negotiations are over and/or hostages have been killed, or a dead-line is looming and an immediate action plan is needed.

Therefore, everyone (Terrorists; Police; Hostages) knows Rainbow (disuised as local police forces as in the books) is there and so, stealth isn't an option and isn't even needed at this stage.

The games, both PC and console, also completely ignore the difference between dymanic entries and actions like blowing out windows, chucking flashbangs into rooms and storming in and non-dymanic/stealth actions such as taking out sentires and bugging phones, etc.

In most real life CQB HR missions, once that first shape charge goes off it is a balls-to-the-walls rush to storm in, neutralize the enemy and make sure they can't mount a counter-attack or carry out their agenda, I.E. killing hostages; destroying intel; etc.

In real life, you can't just go "back" to being stealthy after you've decided to go dynamic. This is where the R6 games are serverly lacking in my opinion.

You can toss a flashbang or frag into a room, kill all the tangos... Yet the tangos in the a few rooms down the hall won't even react. In other words, it's half-stealth, half-dymanic which is completely unrealistic and very disconcerting if you analyze it for what it is (it's not logical and greatly takes away from the player's suspension of disbelief).

And it's not just R6 that has perpetuated this model as being the correct "tactical" model either. SWAT 4 (PC) also uses this slow = tactical model, but goes even further with slowing the movement speed to a crawl -- literally -- And making dynamic and stealth actions all stealth, more or less.

The only squad-based CQB game besides TR to get the difference between stealth and dynamic actions correct is SWAT 3 (PC).

Once you go dynamic in SWAT 3, there is no turning back and this is how it should be. The tactical choice becomes do you go in loud and had from the start, or do you try and maintain a stealthy approach even after you've been compromised? -- Which is all but impossible and the way it should be and is in real life given certain factors.

This main difference is what the past R6 games have sacrificed in order to promote what is now considered the tactical standard of slow and stealth = tactics when a real test of tactic is when 50 things are going on at once (multiple team assaults; flashbangs, shapecharges and gunfire all around you) and you still have to keep you cool and complete your objectives like getting to those VIP hostages before the Tangos do once the assault has begun. This is what "The Regiment" does very well and why it really is a
thinking man's shooter -- Something R6 claims to be, but upon further inspection, the only real thing the player has to think about is moving and and shooting more or less.

TR even has Tangos feigning death, tapping weapons to hostages and setting bobby-traps as far as challenging the player to think quickly and keep their cool. R6 (all platforms) has none of these realistic elements and why is why I said it is not really a thinking persons game as it claims to be.



when i think run-n-gun i usually equate it[in its negative aspects]with Halo style runing and gunning with unrealistic accuracy and effectiveness.a SF operator doesnt run into a room tossing grenades and blazing in all directions while at the same time taking multiple hits and not dropping.if the accuracy is realistic and it only takes 1-3or4 hits to drop someone than that in my mind isnt a run-n-gun game.

This main culprits for these kinds of gameplay mechanics -- like being able to jump and have 100% accuracy in games like CS -- Is because of the devs and nothing else.

If the goal is to make a game like CS which has the pretense of realism, but is more of an unrealistic, arcade shooter at its core then this is what gamers will get because the devs are the only ones who can control how a game plays as they are the only ones who code it aside from mod makers once the game is released.



finally,it seems alot of devs think in the same generalities as you mentioned when it comes to pc versus console's.which is why us console gamers get stuck with alot of arcadey **** while the pc often gets more sophisticated play.it seems to me with the base that consoles have it would still be lucrative to cater to a more discerning audience.i thought GR and GRIT had very realistic gameplay[atleast for a console game]and if im not mistaken they sold very well.

GR and GRIT were very realistic (for the time) because they were more or less 1:1 ports of their PC originals... Which proves your point about how more sophisticated gameplay tends to be for PCs and not the consoles.

However, as I said, a lot of how sophisticated a game is depends heavily on hardware specifications and consoles of the time (PS2; Xbox) are very limted in this regards...

In addition, the fact the core demographic of console gamers are pre-teens and early 20somethings (on average) who probably don't want sophisticatd games like GR and R6 in their purest form, either. Even if you fall into this age group and want this type of game, I bet you are part of a minority when talking about the majority of console gamers out there. And while I agree the age of the console gamer is increasing all the time it still is not as big as the before mentioned one.

Good discussion by the way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

captmac07
07-18-2006, 10:35 AM
Kung Fu,
I agree with you, but as an older gamer I prefer the comfort of my couch as opposed to the chair in front of the PC.They should make a Rainbow for the console called HARDCORE,for your not so average gamer.I know that when I first played Rainbow six on the Dreamcast alot of my friends did not like it because,learning the controls took time,you did'nt just pick it up and play.I also played on the PC, Ravenshield and Rogue Spear.I can play either way but prefer the console for comfort..2 to 6 hours on a couch vs the chair.Having said that I also prefer the PC versions for the MORE Tactical approach.Now can I get a console mixed with PC gameplay.I like video games, and I don't care if they are on the PC,360, or the PS3 just make them good games!!!

KungFu_CIA
07-18-2006, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by captmac07:
Kung Fu,
I agree with you, but as an older gamer I prefer the comfort of my couch as opposed to the chair in front of the PC.They should make a Rainbow for the console called HARDCORE,for your not so average gamer.I know that when I first played Rainbow six on the Dreamcast alot of my friends did not like it because,learning the controls took time,you did'nt just pick it up and play.I also played on the PC, Ravenshield and Rogue Spear.I can play either way but prefer the console for comfort..2 to 6 hours on a couch vs the chair.Having said that I also prefer the PC versions for the MORE Tactical approach.Now can I get a console mixed with PC gameplay.I like video games, and I don't care if they are on the PC,360, or the PS3 just make them good games!!!

The main issue, again, is it boils down to target demographics and the fact most console (and mainstream) gamers just do not like so-called tactical shooters and prefer the more arcade run-and-gun games like Halo, Quake, UT, etc. Sales of arcade games vs. tactical shooters back up this statement and something I am sure most tac-shooter and sim fans have been painfully aware of for quite some time.

Case in point: GR and IT (on all platforms) were successful for their time... But look at what happened with GR2 and then GRAW on both PC and consoles. They were designed more for the arcade-crowd rather than the hardcore tactical crowd for the simple reason there is more money to be made in the bigger arcade markets than the niche tactical ones as we've established.

It should be noted this is also a result of the video games industry growing into a $135 billion (2005) dollar-a-year industry compared to just a few years ago when it was still starting out as a mainstream industry like in the mid-to-late '90s.

Obviously, tactical games are still made -- more on the PC due to the target demographic of who plays PC games and the increased hardware specs -- But they are becoming fewer and fewer compared to the heyday of tac-sims in the early millennium when games like Operation Flashpoint, SWAT 3, Rainbow Six and others were establishing the tactical genre as it is today and there was almost an over abundence of these types of games.

However, getting back to what you said regarding consoles, some analysts and gamers argue that as gamers grow chronologically older their tastes change and they will start to demand more sophisticated games be made -- especially on the console -- But what these persons forget is for every console gamer who turns 30, there are probably five to six new gamers who turn 13 to replace them... And the console game devs and publishers not only know this, but count on this and this is why it is easier for them not to develop sophisticated games for the console as the primary demographic probably doesn't want them to be blunt.

Do you think a 13-year old wants to spend an hour planning a mission with multiple teams and then finally get into the game and be taken out by one shot?

Not to stereotype, but my guess would be no.

They would rather jump in and start shooting terrorists while being able to take a few more hits themselves ala Counter-Strike than play the game as the original concept of R6 was envisioned.

Using the above example, tailoring the product in this way to meet the needs of gamers like this is another reason why there aren't a lot of sophisticated games on the console overall regardless of genre and why consoles are looked down upon by arrogant PC-gamers as being an inferior gaming platform for "console kiddies" and other stupid stuff you hear all over the net whenever the console vs. PC discussion comes up.

So, while I agree with what you are saying in theory...

The only persons who are going to be able to test this theory in the market place are developers and publishers who are willing to take a risk and design a console game FOR ADULTS from the ground up and see how well it does (regardless of who buys it) and if it is successful produce many more.

silentassasin05
07-18-2006, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Hobbez245:
Agree. I know myself and many others feel: If vegas is noob friendly and once again a another ubi letdown....we no longer will buy ubisoft games.

Most companies make BETTER games as series progress...UBI is going backwards. IT is a shame. Isnt that a good thing? the series was going downhill after Black Arrow, so going BACKWARDS to them days seems good. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
But, this series was great. i hope Ubi can recapture that with vegas

captmac07
07-18-2006, 06:36 PM
There's no question the games today are made for a younger demographic.Alot of people may think they are RS6 fan's,but probably would not like the original because it did take some planning.I have a 13yr old son that really does'nt care for RS6 because in his words, it tries to be "realistic", and he prefers FAR CRY with the Predator mode,and pretty much anything with Aliens(HALO)etc.I really don't think making these more Hollywood is going to make him like it anymore,but then I've been wrong before.

KungFu_CIA
07-18-2006, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by captmac07:
There's no question the games today are made for a younger demographic.Alot of people may think they are RS6 fan's,but probably would not like the original because it did take some planning.I have a 13yr old son that really does'nt care for RS6 because in his words, it tries to be "realistic", and he prefers FAR CRY with the Predator mode,and pretty much anything with Aliens(HALO)etc.

Ironically, you have the proverbial 13-year old whose presence is only alluded to vaguely whenever discussions about consoles and who games (in general) are tailored are discussed, yet you can see exactly what we are talking about first hand http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Also, I realize video games are a form of escapist entertainment and don't hold it against anyone for liking certain types of games, or genres since we all have our personal preferences as well.

I like games like "Prey" and "Doom", sci-fi fantasy shooters, just as much as I like games like R6 (original) and Operation Flashpoint... As well as adventure games like "Dreamfall: The Longest Journey II" and "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic" series as well.

However, out of all these games I spend the most time with R6 (PC and console), both SP and MP because I just like the subject matter of CQB and anti-terrorism operations -- Which is why I brought "The Regiment" into the discussion earlier because whenever I see a game... any game on any platform... That does squad-based CQB very well, I will tell everyone I know about it so they don't miss out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


I really don't think making these more Hollywood is going to make him like it anymore,but then I've been wrong before.

In another ironic twist, this is a big, long discussion we had on the R6:5 PC board and we addressed the fact most games are now designed more as interactive movies more than video games compared to just a few years ago.

We (R6 PC fans) discussed the various facets about how making games more like Hollywood movies -- Complete with the unrealistic, over-the-top Hollywood action pieces and cliched characterizations -- Is what is slowly ruining the R6 franchise, in our collective opinions, because R6 established itself as a more accurate (if not realistic) depiction of CQB/HR operations than trying to be a Hollywood blockbuster like most other arcade games try and mimic.

In other words, it was the original R6's dry, no non-sense real world elements which helped distringuish itself as more of a tactical sim than a "video game" since most video games are based around a central "hero" character and a Hollywood-esque central storyline for their main SP component.

Flash forward eight years (from 1998) to the present where the most mainstream form of entertainment is still by far movies/films and you can see why the video games industry uses them as a template when designing the SP portions of games because it is a universal aspect the average gamer can immediately identify with and a uiniversal frame which developers can build the SP storyline around because that is what films are: stories.

The problem with this approach, in our collective discussions, is this is not what the original R6 was about... At least, not to the extent UBI and the games industry has been emphasizing "games being more like movies" in recent years.

From what we've seen (videos; dev diaries), R6:Vegas is a prime example of this.

The devs openly admit they want this game to be more of a Hollywood-style movie experience than a "video game" and while there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach, the side-effects of using this model often become apparent once the game is released and they are:

1) Making games more like movies means scripting a lot of in-game events to put the player into certain situation(s) to evoke certain emotional responses.

The end result of scripting means linear gameplay which never changes a second, or third play through and greatly diminishes the freedom the player may have when they are in the game itself.

This is one reason why gamers have shifted focus to MP as MP contains all the elements SP games seem to be lacking lately and those are unpredictability and most importantly, replayability as no two MP sessions are ever the same and never will be.

2) Games are still not at the level technology-wise, or storytelling-wise (depending on the writers) where you can actually evoke a strong emotional response similar to how a live actor (even on film) can because a video game is still in fact a video game and the player knows this.

While films are a passive form of entertainment and games interactive...

I have yet to see a game that can evoke the emotional response I may have when I watch a well executed film where the actors, director and everything else (music; editing; sound; etc.) are at the top of their craft to create a truly emotionally satisfying experience. Having played a lot of games over the years I personally have never experienced anything close to this and this is probably because on a conscious level, I know I am playing a video game and this is something that just can't be "removed" or "disconnected" whenever I play one. Mind you, this is just me, but chances are I am probably not the only one who feels the same way as I play games for different reasons as when I watch a movie, read a book or listen to music and vice versa.

drunkrepublican
07-18-2006, 09:38 PM
You don't like it, oh well. Just don't play it. You don't have to waste everybodies time complaining on a forum.

GSG_9_Rage
07-19-2006, 10:22 AM
you can't just stop playing it, not when you have been apart of the rainbow six series for almost eight years now, like him and i have. It is such a hard thing to do.

drunkrepublican
07-19-2006, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by GSG_9_Rage:
you can't just stop playing it, not when you have been apart of the rainbow six series for almost eight years now, like him and i have. It is such a hard thing to do.

I've been playing Rainbow since it first came out too, but I'm going with the flow. I think of it as an evolution in the series. They don't want to make it "UBER-TACTICAL" that would turn off the casual gamer. Now if it's too arcade-like, it would turn off the hardcore. They're trying to meet in the middle, just like Black arrow. Not as tactical as Rogue Spear, not as arcady as Lockdown.

Jermtheory
07-19-2006, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by drunkrepublican:
You don't like it, oh well. Just don't play it. You don't have to waste everybodies time complaining on a forum.

im pretty sure its called a forum for exactly this type of discussion.

but its just another artform being turned into commercialized ****....we should just shut-up and swallow. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

KungFu_CIA
07-19-2006, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Jermtheory:

but its just another artform being turned into commercialized ****....we should just shut-up and swallow. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

The main thing which turns a lot of gamers off whenever they hear a game is trying to be more "mainstream" is a majority of developers and publishers often equate mainstream to dumbing-down the gameplay ala Lockdown.

On the other hand, other developers and publishers take the "if it ain't broke, don't try and fix it" approach whereby they actually improve on what made the original game(s) popular by adding new features that actually move the series forward as well.

The latter is the better approach in my humble opinion for obvious reasons.

For example, from what we have seen so far, I can see evolution in Vegas from Rogue Spear and Raven Shield and I am grateful.

The biggest one is the fiber optic camera and tagging system in SP.

I will make an educated guess the complaints about the Team AI being subpar in previous R6 games was a big reason why they decided to basically restrict the AI to certain targets and a limited number of targets (via the tagging system) since there is/will be no doubt in the player's mind the AI can handle the situation as it isn't being overwhelemed like most AI in these kinds of games are. This kind of thinking improves upon the original games and moves the series forward since this is 2006, and Team AI should be able to clear a room properly and not just get wiped out a second after the door opens.

The tagging system also negates a lot of the tedious pre-planning phase from the original R6 games as well because the planning phase was to basically simulate a simultaneous assault using more than one team... But the AI itself wasn't really capable of carrying out the plan(s) at the effective level they should be for this system to be an effective part of the game. From my perspective, the planning phase was basically trying to simulate CO-OP, but without the increased awreness and intelligence of human players who would be filling the roles of the other squad members.

However, that doesn't mean I don't want pre-planning and multiple teams completely removed from the PC version of R6:5, either. I just think combined with the tagging system and on-the-fly orders, it will improve the game over all previous games and this is exactly the kind of approach more devs and publishers should take if their budgets allow.

captmac07
07-19-2006, 04:33 PM
Kung Fu you make some very valid point's,and all we can do is hope these types of discussion's don't fall on deaf ear's.Let's hope Vegas is a great game.

KungFu_CIA
07-19-2006, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by captmac07:
Kung Fu you make some very valid point's,and all we can do is hope these types of discussion's don't fall on deaf ear's.Let's hope Vegas is a great game.

One last thing...

It has been UBI and Red Storm Entertainment's goal to bring R6 to the masses and they've succeeded because the game is now a console series separate from the PC series. I don't know how more mainstream you can get (consoles) unless we go for hand-held units and mobile phones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So, the game is already "mainstream".

It is now up to the developers and publishers to decide what kind of game they are going to produce and it is your choice as a consumer/gamer to either approve (buy and continue to buy the games), or disapprove of their decisions and vote via your wallet accordingly.

Look at what happened with Lockdown. It was an abysmal failure across every platform and this is because gamers excersized their financial clout and didn't buy it and told others not to buy it as well and the rest is history... Which proves gamers do have a voice that devs and publishers must listen to on at least some level even if they may not acknowledge it publically.

Thoramir
07-20-2006, 12:00 PM
Hmm, I thought Rogue Spear was one of the n00b friendliest games I ever played. The controls were simple enough that I got recruited by a clan the first night I played online. Beyond knowing the controls, the rest was just using your brain a little bit. To me, n00b unfriendly means requiring the reflexes of a hyper-active 13 year old.

KungFu_CIA
07-20-2006, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Thoramir:
Hmm, I thought Rogue Spear was one of the n00b friendliest games I ever played. The controls were simple enough that I got recruited by a clan the first night I played online. Beyond knowing the controls, the rest was just using your brain a little bit. To me, n00b unfriendly means requiring the reflexes of a hyper-active 13 year old.

Rogue Spear is the prime example of a game that is easy to pick-up and play, but hard to master in the long run because the game mechanics are so simple in comparison to today's games... Yet complex on another level if you take the time to really delve into them.

You stated it was too easy... But a lot of this has to do with the simplicity of the game's design and it not being overly complicated like a lot of recent games which allows one to think about tactics more than usual and this is what competitive (as in person vs. person) video games should be like in my opinion...

Especially, if so-called e-sports wants to legitimize itself as a sport because a lot of the games right now like Counter-Strike, Halo, BF2 and others rely too much on luck than real skill and so-called tactics in my opinion if you know how the games are designed.

I believe RS (TDM) could be used as the template for a true competitive e-sport in that it has two sides who are equally matched with the same in-game abilities and weapon selection from the start with the only difference being the team desingations of Red and Green, Red and Gold, etc.

In addition, Rogue Spear's strengths are, in my opinion, its uncluttered HUD; the speed at which avatars move; ballistics which are fairly accurate at close and medium range; the ability to use 3rd-Person (as controversial as this is); being able to power-up your grenade throw; the recticle shrinking if you strafe; and being able to lean.

These may not seem like that big a deal in this day in age, but what RS did and still manages to do is what a lot of recent games don't do and that is strip away all the fancy eye-candy and other useless features (melee attacks?) in favor of pure gameplay and it is this aspect which I personally don't think has been matched in any FPS since RS was released.

Granted, RS was not perfect, either.

RS has no first person weapon; no recoil shake; no simulated recoil whatsoever; no head/weapon bobbing; no real locational damage; no iron sights (in the contemporary sense) and a host of other features more modern games posess...

But I still believe RS is a textbook case of how if devs design a game from the ground-up to be a certain way it can be successful for what it is trying to accomplish because what people often forget is R6 and RS were originally intended as weapon simulation games from the start and not just "mods" of unrealistic, sci-fi shooters like most supposed realism games such as Counter-Strike and BF2 are underneath. Even Raven Shield is Unreal Tournament with a more realistic damage model and real world weapons underneath. R6 and RS on the other hand are in fact true realism-based games and they do what they do well in terms of their gameplay (even if every aspect isn't entirely realistic) even to this day which has kept a small, but loyal group of RS players eight years after the game was released. I think this is part of the reason why the gameplay is so successful on at least one level (because it has nothing to hide behind; you either like how it plays, or you don't).

So, I agree it may be "too easy" by today's standards and any personal apptitude one may have for FPS... I also think RS hasn't been matched by any game in recent memory because of its emphasis on pure gameplay since this is the cornerstone of the statement "gameplay over graphics" in every sense of the word.

Time2Die01
07-20-2006, 03:48 PM
Aight, My turn to get in on this discussion.

I own and have played Rainbow Six, R6: EW, RS, RSL UO, RvS, RvS: AS, and for the xbox, R6 III: Black Arrow.

I have to say, Kung Fu, I agree with you on every point you have made so far, and saying that I started reading from the first post. Rogue spear was a little difficult at first to pick up, being that I had just gotten off of Rainbow Six and was getting used to the 'WASD' controls, but after that I continued to play the game even six years later. Given that I stopped playing for months at a time during that time.

I also own and have played Counter Strike and as stated, it is based very much on 'luck' no matter how hard you try. Also, the general age I find people on are under 15. Usually when I go into a server there are between 2-5 people already muted from previous games where they have been obnoxious and annoying.

For Black Arrow, I picked it up because my gaming rig had crashed and I wanted a Rainbow Six series game to play. I was immediatly disappointed with the fact that the weapon selection was so stripped down, and there we no weapon modifications, (ex. Silencers, Ext. Mags, scopes). That was a major part of the online adversial play for Raven Shield. It added more variety to the game and thus different ways to play all togethor.

This was not the only disappoint though. The entire way I was used to playing, shooting even strategy was turned upside down on me. Ok ok, So you have some auto-aim online. That's fine, most console games do to make up for it being harder to aim with a joystick. But when I can kill a guy with a headshot while aiming about 50 feet to the right of him is just crazy. Takes away almost all skill from the game. All you need to know is crouch, wait for someone's head to enter the gigantic circle, and tap the trigger as lightly as you can for a single shot.

Oh, and the snipers? Useless. Anyone with a UMP can take out a sniper at long range. Black arrow would fit my definition of 'Run and Gun' for online play, and 'Stealth Shooter' for campagn.

KungFu; All of RS's imperfections you mentioned all contributed to its greatness. As you said, the uncluttered HUD and pure gameplay you got out of it was just amazing. The zone has now stopped supporting all CD-Rom games, including Rogue spear. So the few that still play it have moved elsewhere, but I have moved on to Raven Shield.

And Ubi, Red Storm should always have responsibility for the multiplayer aspect of the game. They made Rogue Spear, how can they go wrong? They have the experience. Aiming a Teen/Mature rated game at thirteen-year-olds isn't exactly what I would call 'supporting your franchise'. Granted, they would be the most impulsive buyers, but they wouldn't give the dedication and honest good feedback you'd want in return to make the next installment. As soon as another great game comes out (Halo 3?) you loose over half the players/potental buyers.

"I also think RS hasn't been matched by any game in recent memory because of its emphasis on pure gameplay since this is the cornerstone of the statement "gameplay over graphics" in every sense of the word." -KungFu. He's Right. Listen to this guy.

Jermtheory
07-20-2006, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
Especially, if so-called e-sports wants to legitimize itself as a sport because a lot of the games right now like Counter-Strike, Halo, BF2 and others rely too much on luck than real skill and so-called tactics in my opinion if you know how the games are designed.

I believe RS (TDM) could be used as the template for a true competitive e-sport in that it has two sides who are equally matched with the same in-game abilities and weapon selection from the start with the only difference being the team desingations of Red and Green, Red and Gold, etc.

In addition, Rogue Spear's strengths are, in my opinion, its uncluttered HUD; the speed at which avatars move; ballistics which are fairly accurate at close and medium range; the ability to use 3rd-Person (as controversial as this is); being able to power-up your grenade throw; the recticle shrinking if you strafe; and being able to lean.



im just curious on how you think the 3rd person view makes for more even gameplay?in 1st person someone must expose themselves in order to engage a target.in 3rd whoever happens to be lucky enough to be in the right spot at the right time[or even worse is "cover camping"] has a huge advantage thats completely unrelated to skill.personally i think 1st person is far more realistic and makes for far more balanced gameplay.using cover tactically in 1st person is still essential but isnt turned into basically a cheat for whoever decides to "cover camp".

sorry,im not trying to change the subject...i understand why some people prefer the 3rd person view but i just cant for the life of me understand the "3rd person is more realistic arguement"[not that you have made it,i dont know your stance],i know 1st person isnt perfect but imo there is no comparison on which is closer to the real thing.

im not military but i have had a good deal of training in things like house/building clearing and CQ combat.the theme of the training was almost completely about sight lines,"slicing the pie"....3rd person completely ruins any semblance of realistic sight lines.

KungFu_CIA
07-20-2006, 07:18 PM
I believe 3rd person has its place if:

1) Everyone has access to it.

2) The general concensus among those playing the game agree 3rd Person is a legitimate tactic and is an accepted part of the game.

The latter is something you experience with GRAW as well as the dislike of 3rd Person in the general R6 Community, both PC and console, as 3rd Person is a very controversial subject of much debate... But ultimately, it comes down to who(m) you play with and the general consensus on whether or not it detracts from the game, or adds to it... Which in the end is subjective.

Also, I don't know if 3rd Person has its place in e-sports as far as the actual gameplay -- to address this particular question -- But I think as far as games go, RS giving players the freedom of choice of how they want to play with an additional feature like 3rd Person isn't a bad thing at all in my opinion. In fact, I believe there should be more freedom in games... Especially, first person shooters and tac-sims... But that is another discussion entirely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Of course, personal views on 3rd Person is all subjective and we come right back to whether or not you (players in general) view 3rd Person as something "cheap", "unrealistic" or even "more immersive" (improved tactical awareness) like some gamers claim.

I played Rogue Spear back in the late '90s and early 2000, and from my perspective 3rd Person wasn't that big of a deal in my opinion... Mainly because of a couple of factors:

A) The position of the reticule was so far from the player's body that actually trying to aim and hit something with it -- even if you were camping -- Wasn't as easy as it sounds given how fast MP matches unfolded.

The response time of trying to line-up the reticule on a moving target and turn was very slow compared to first person -- as it should be -- And from my perspective, this is what discouraged it's use more than anything.

I think the Red Storm devs purposefully made it problematic to always be in 3rd Person, so people wouldn't camp, or become dependent on it as it is far more accurate to aim in first person as we all know.

B) As mentioned, the pace of most non-competitive MP matches was fast and furious until the last few people were left alive and then it slowed down considerably for obvious reasons.

If you combine these two factors this is what I think discouraged the use of 3rd Person more than anything -- Even though, I fully acknowledge a big part of it was the informal consensus of the RS Community to just not use it or accept it as a legitimate gameplay tactic as stated earlier.

Jermtheory
07-20-2006, 07:42 PM
im all for options....i think the problem with GRAW is the lack of a 1st person gun-model.whether or not people like the weaponless view i think most would agree if a gun model was an option it would be alot easier to find a 1st person only game[especially if it looked as good as the character models].

Darth_SS
07-23-2006, 09:44 PM
I have yet to see a game that can evoke the emotional response I may have when I watch a well executed film where the actors, director and everything else (music; editing; sound; etc.) are at the top of their craft to create a truly emotionally satisfying experience. Having played a lot of games over the years I personally have never experienced anything close to this and this is probably because on a conscious level, I know I am playing a video game and this is something that just can't be "removed" or "disconnected" whenever I play one. Mind you, this is just me, but chances are I am probably not the only one who feels the same way as I play games for different reasons as when I watch a movie, read a book or listen to music and vice versa.

I'm disagreeing, but as you stated, this is largely personal preference. I've found that Brothers in Arms 1&2 were incredibly moving, emotionally. So was Half-Life 2, and Republic Commando.

Touching off of the last, I think that Ubisoft should/should have observed some of the elements they put in there. I mean, for one thing, the squad didn't have an obscene amount of chatter. But, what they did have reflected personality. That is what they tried to do in Lockdown, but they ended up making them appear incredibly cliche. In RC, your squad became your own happy homicidal familiy of sorts. While I know that isn't what Team Rainbow should be, I would definitely like to have more of a connection to them. They also implemented the role of Boss quite well, whereas in R6 you don't feel much connection to Ding. In RC, Boss had enough lines to nudge you to being like him, and by the end you had the impression that you were Boss.

On a gameplay perspective, in R6 your squad and you operate seperately. You never really felt like you were a part of a team. Your squad also stuck together, while you were free to move independently. In RC, while you did have team actions, every member moved independently. They could flank without you telling them to. They would scatter when something came at them. They did what was best for the team and themselves. Hopefully, the squad will act like this for Vegas...


Overall, I think Ubisoft should ignore the people who refuse to move forward, or act maturely, and just do what they do best. Make a great game. Give your usual level of polish.

KungFu_CIA
07-23-2006, 11:05 PM
Darth_SS:

I personally think the real issue regarding "immersing" the player into the R6-World is that R6, from the novel to the very first PC games, was never intended for everyone, aka the masses, when RSE created it as a video game in 1998. RSE specifically targeted those who were interested in a more true-to-life CQB, anti-terrorism simulation and who didn't want any of the standard video game, or Hollywood elements put in -- Which is a hypocracy at the basic level considering Rainbow Six is fictional and created by a best-selling author... But I am assuming we are putting the actual existence of R6 aside and discussing how it has been interpreted over the years, correct?

As I said on another thread, I understand the importance of good characters, story and other elements in video games. They are a mainstream form of entertainment and thus, should have these elements if they want to be successful.

However, I must come right back to the fact the original R6 series of games was never intended for the mainstream audience -- at least on the PC -- As those who make up the majority of the PC fanbase are mostly chronologically older (late 20s and up) as well as retired, or active duty military, law enforcement/security presonnel etc. who have, or had real life experience in the things R6 tries to recreate.

Not all of R6's fans fit this description, obviously (I've never been in the military or in law enforcement), but I will state with confidence the majority of the R6 PC fanbase is comprised of who I just described above...

And this group wants the more "detached" and "professional" approach to R6 which amounts to a dry and dull presentation with "no frills" and no central hero characters, etc, etc... Because this is closer to what real life is like.

Understand, I am not saying persons in the military or law enforcement don't speak to one another outside, or even during the missions, or are "human"... But the point is the R6 games take place during tense, life-or-death situations and from what I have read and the soldiers and police I have talked to (in the R6 PC Community) the number one thing they like about the games is they (used to) reflect the real-life professionalism and focus of how real CQB operators act during a hostage rescue mission and the reason they like this aspect is because most games don't get these nuances and details right and treat the subject material like a cartoon -- more or less -- Which is insulting to the real-life CQB operators who do this for real and keep us safe and more importantly because it rings false and is not "real" in the sense it fails to immerse them in the game while they are playing.

This is where there is a huge difference between the two audiences of R6 and what they want and expect out of an R6 game if we are comparing/contrasting the PC audience and the console audience and I don't just mean the demographics (age; income; etc.) between console and PC users either.

Personally, I prefer the dry, no frills approach the older R6 games used because the thing they did better than the console games is that instead of being forced to play some fictional chracter, I.E. Ding Chavez, you were basically playing yourself because you were in charge of planning the mission, equipping the team, etc. AND you were also responsible for the failure when things went wrong.

This is something most recent games (all platforms) seem to be getting away from -- Allowing the player to actually fail -- And it amazes me because devs then try to immerse the player by making them some fictional bad-*** who is as hard as nails (Duke Nuke'em; Master Chief; Sam Fisher et al.) when if they allowed the player to fail as him/herself they would, in my opinion, realize the player is far more vested and immersed by what they are doing because failure and the reaction to failure is an emotional response and active/engaged state when it is the player who fails and not "Ding Chavez".

This is something Konami managed to execute with precision with "The Regiment" and I am so sorry it isn't coming to the Xbox, or PS2 for console players because once you play it, you will understand and see how "fake" most other squad-based shooters (including R6) are in terms of what they emphasize and how they try and "immerse" the player. TR trains the player how to be a virtual SF CQB Operator and thereby gives the player a real, tangible (virtual) skill they must use to complete the game.

Again, there is nothing more immersive in my opinion than having the player learn something not only can they use in TR, but also in other squad-based, CQB games (realism based or not). This is the definition of a skill.

Even if this skill isn't 100% accurate in how to clear a room in real life, it is close enough to where it trains the player to think in an entirely new way than they previously did before they played TR and that is the key factor:

The player is changed from before they played the game. Therefore, they are actively engaged and immersed without resorting to cliched characterizations and other forced elements.

The reason I went into all of this is because I think both approaches have their place if they are used in moderation and don't overwhelm one another and thereby don't alienate, or turn potential gamers who fall into one of two categories (realism/sim fans; general first person shooter fans) away from the game simply because it fails to balance these various elements from the start.

While I favor more pro-active techniques like "The Regiment" uses I can live with more traditional elements as long as they are executed well and treat me, the player, like an adult and don't talk down to me (treat me like I am an idiot) like Lockdown did.

Darth_SS
07-25-2006, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
Understand, I am not saying persons in the military or law enforcement don't speak to one another outside, or even during the missions, or are "human"... But the point is the R6 games take place during tense, life-or-death situations and from what I have read and the soldiers and police I have talked to (in the R6 PC Community) the number one thing they like about the games is they (used to) reflect the real-life professionalism and focus of how real CQB operators act during a hostage rescue mission and the reason they like this aspect is because most games don't get these nuances and details right and treat the subject material like a cartoon -- more or less -- Which is insulting to the real-life CQB operators who do this for real and keep us safe and more importantly because it rings false and is not "real" in the sense it fails to immerse them in the game while they are playing.


Don't misinterpret me, I'm not saying that the team should never shut up, and that they should be quirky beyond all belief. What I am saying is that the developpers should make you see the AI as people, your friends and comrades, instead of the human shaped tools you have at your disposal.

My dad was on a boarding team in the Canadian Navy, and was one of the people that boarded the Katie whenever that was. My uncle is on a SWAT team. What they've both told me is that, yes people are professional. It's they're job, and if they screw up, people could die. What they have said though is that people don't get there and turn into robots. They'll offer reassurances, made the odd joke (only where appropriate, like when one of the guys slipped during a helo insertion onto the Katie) and mutter things to one another like "Don't come in so close behind me, you almost knocked me over last time." or "Keep it tight, just like practice." My dad said there was one smart-*** on their team who actually said, "Hope no one gets sea-sick!" just before they inserted.

It's that stuff Rainbow should have. Not the over the top stuff, just the things you would expect people to say, without them getting off the job.

Lawman3091
07-26-2006, 04:54 AM
I agree 100% with you guys. Most of these "console Kids" have no idea of what a real RB6 game really is. Lets face it since Rouge Spear (PC) the series has gotten worse with each title. Any soldier,ex-soldier police officer will tell you that it is imposible to miss a target 2 feet away with a full-automatic rifle yet in the console games (GRAW/RB6)it happens too often. The Devs sell these games as the most "realistic" combat game ever made and they are not. New ubisoft games are rent before you buy now.

KungFu_CIA
07-26-2006, 08:06 AM
Darth_SS:

The main symptom of what you describe is two fold in my opinion:

1) Game developers are game developers and not SWAT, or Special Forces members (on average) and don't have the actual experience of knowing how persons react in those real life siutations.

This isn't their fault, initially, but a lot of times devs don't even try and do the required research which is the reason most games aren't as realistic as they claim.

Case in point:

The bone-headed developers or GRAW PC, "GRIN", had access to tons of miliatry advisors (Hatchetforce was one of them), access to real life weapons and other things... Yet they completely ignored the counsel of real life soldiers and the vast pool of real life data at their fingertips and decided to get their weapons and ballistics details off the internet of all places.

The same thing happened with Lockdown. Again, the producers completely ignored Hatchetforce and other experienced military personnel's counsel and went ahead and made their version of what they considered "realism" and we all know how accurate that turned out -- Not even close to the previous games version of realism, let alone realistic in any sense of the word.

2) Games are still a form of entertainment first and foremost and a mainstream, appeal to the lowest common denominator one at that. Therefore, they have to "dumb down" the interaction with your team members to either one of two states:

A) Robotic killing machines with no personality ala R6.

B) Over-the-top, cartoon-like charicatures complete with cliched stereotypes and dialogue only a four year old would believe is "authentic".

Granted, there have been games which get the interaction with NPCs right like "Brothers in Arms" and "Republic Commando" -- But on a whole, in my opinion, a lot of squad-based games either fall into one of the two categories above because it is much easier and less time consuming to pigeonhole the NPC interaction into those two categories then spend the time to get it right because of deadlines and budget constratints (voice acting for the NPCs is another expense and the less of it the cheaper it is).

Lawman3091
07-27-2006, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
Darth_SS:

The main symptom of what you describe is two fold in my opinion:

1) Game developers are game developers and not SWAT, or Special Forces members (on average) and don't have the actual experience of knowing how persons react in those real life siutations.

This isn't their fault, initially, but a lot of times devs don't even try and do the required research which is the reason most games aren't as realistic as they claim.

Case in point:

The bone-headed developers or GRAW PC, "GRIN", had access to tons of miliatry advisors (Hatchetforce was one of them), access to real life weapons and other things... Yet they completely ignored the counsel of real life soldiers and the vast pool of real life data at their fingertips and decided to get their weapons and ballistics details off the internet of all places.

The same thing happened with Lockdown. Again, the producers completely ignored Hatchetforce and other experienced military personnel's counsel and went ahead and made their version of what they considered "realism" and we all know how accurate that turned out -- Not even close to the previous games version of realism, let alone realistic in any sense of the word.

2) Games are still a form of entertainment first and foremost and a mainstream, appeal to the lowest common denominator one at that. Therefore, they have to "dumb down" the interaction with your team members to either one of two states:

A) Robotic killing machines with no personality ala R6.

B) Over-the-top, cartoon-like charicatures complete with cliched stereotypes and dialogue only a four year old would believe is "authentic".

Granted, there have been games which get the interaction with NPCs right like "Brothers in Arms" and "Republic Commando" -- But on a whole, in my opinion, a lot of squad-based games either fall into one of the two categories above because it is much easier and less time consuming to pigeonhole the NPC interaction into those two categories then spend the time to get it right because of deadlines and budget constratints (voice acting for the NPCs is another expense and the less of it the cheaper it is). Again I agree with you Kungfu, but the games are not getting cheaper. I guess we will never get a game that lives up to its billing. The devs only appeal to the younger gamer who is just happy to be playing something new. (Hence a $15.00 DL which should have been free in GRAW). Kungfu you also mentioned in a different post that MP modes wont look as good as SP because of bandwith on consoles. Can you tell me why is that and why cant they counter that problem?

KungFu_CIA
07-27-2006, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Lawman3091:

Kungfu you also mentioned in a different post that MP modes wont look as good as SP because of bandwith on consoles. Can you tell me why is that and why cant they counter that problem?

First, I want to be clear there has been NO information regarding Vegas' MP mode in terms of graphics, the kinds of game modes it will ship with, etc.

However, to answer your question in the general sense...

It always comes down to bandwidth and hardware requirements (limitations) and this applies across all platforms, but especially the console as consoles are always limited in these two areas compared to a top-of-the-line gaming PC.

This is the main reasons why most MP games (on all platforms) have slightly less detailed graphics than the SP part of the game.

In the SP part of a game there are no bandwidth requirements in the sense you are essentially hosting and playing on the same machine, so there is no delay (ping) from when you send and receive game data like there is when you play over the internet.

Contrast this to playing over the internet where there is a delay and the more detailed the game's assets are -- Which includes polygon count for player models, maps and map objects; amount (size and number) of textures used; visual effects like particles (explosions; tracer fire; smoke and flashbang grenades) -- Usually means the more information has to be sent back and forth and you can see why the less-is-more approach is the favored most of the time...

Especially, if you consider my example is just the visual aspects of the game and doesn't include audio data as well as positional data -- The most important part of any MP game -- In addition to the visual aspects.

This is why the days of playing games on 56K dial-up are all but dead: Bandwidth requirements.

Most modern games have way too much information which needs to be sent back and forth from servers and clients at speeds faster than 56K because 56K just isn't enough to make the gaming experience enjoyable/playable.

KungFu_CIA
07-27-2006, 11:10 AM
Also...

To answer the second part of your question about what can be done to counter this?

The only alternative at the present time given console hardware restratints is to cut down on the number of total players in a game.

For example, games like F.E.A.R. and Doom III on the PC, if you want to run the game with everything at max detail, at high (1280x1024+) resolutions, you can only have maybe 2-4 players total because of all the steep hardware requirements due the high amounts of information that have to be sent back and forth between the server and clients...

And you also have to take into account most games hosted on consoles the host is also playing on the same machine (unless it is a separate dedicated console setup for hosting only) which doubles the horespower needed to have a game perform at optimal levels with little to no slowdown (lag).

big_perm
07-28-2006, 10:36 AM
Kung Fu, I was under the impression that packets traded were basically just players positions and bullets/frags being thrown fired and everything else is just rendered by your machine(physics, polygons, etc) which wouldnt need bandwith to do. As far as data exchanged between clients, I thought is was basically the same for all games. I dont understand what graphics would have to do with bandwith in any way. I just believed MP was less intensive for video lag purposes. You can get away with poor frames in SP but in MP its deadly. I dont know any of this for sure, it was just my impressions of what happens.

KungFu_CIA
07-28-2006, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by big_perm:
Kung Fu, I was under the impression that packets traded were basically just players positions and bullets/frags being thrown fired and everything else is just rendered by your machine(physics, polygons, etc) which wouldnt need bandwith to do. As far as data exchanged between clients, I thought is was basically the same for all games. I dont understand what graphics would have to do with bandwith in any way. I just believed MP was less intensive for video lag purposes. You can get away with poor frames in SP but in MP its deadly. I dont know any of this for sure, it was just my impressions of what happens.

You're right in the sense all that is actually being sent back and forth between server and client is variable (changing) data and the actual assets that are used to render and reproduce those effects/changes are stored and rendered on your (the client's) machine.

However, the more information that needs to be sent back and forth... As in the amount of data... Is what I mean when I say bandwidth requirements for most modern games are increasing every year. This is because it isn't just player position and other basic data which is being sent any more.

For example, data being sent back and forth now includes complex physics calculations that need to be registered by the server, calculated and then the result sent to all the clients (duplicated) so everyone has the same physics experience. I.E., if a grenade goes off and shatters a window, that window is blown out on everyone's machine and not just the person who threw the grenade.

Where this comes into play as far as the visuals are concerned is -- especially on consoles -- Is again, the limited amount of resources (even the Xbox360) most consoles have compared to a gaming PC to both store and render all of this data.

Remember, for the Xbox360, you play off the disc (even though assets are loaded into memory/cache) and use what are essentially mid-to-low end graphics cards with only 512 MB of total video and system RAM in comparison to a standard, mid-range gaming PC.

Therefore, for consoles, it makes more sense to scale back the assets on the client's end to fit their hardware specs/limiations from the start in order to balance out some of the other data that will also be sent back and forth like physics data and whatnot. In turn, this also helps to maxmimize performance and loading times as well.

Basically, it's just like when competitive PC gamers turn all the graphic details to their lowest setting and play the game at 640x480... Except consoles automatically do this for the player by default such as in GRAW for the Xbox360, as do most MP console games where the graphics may be slightly less detailed than the SP game.