PDA

View Full Version : Acceptable Losses in Game Functionality



KungFu_CIA
03-15-2006, 06:45 AM
<span class="ev_code_RED">TO CLARIFY: There has been no official information given to the Council, or other media outlets about R6:5 for the PC at this time.</span>

However, given the current business model UBI uses and general direction the R6 series is headed...



What would you, as part of the larger R6 Communities, consider "acceptable losses" in terms of sacrificing certain features in favor of new ones? Or at least, improving already existing ones, but having less of them?


To help focus the discussion please, classify your comments into either SP and MP as they are two distinct areas which will exist as a whole.

I will start:

SP

-I'd be willing to sacrifice multiple teams and pre-planning for vastly improved AI (Squad and Tango) and non-linear maps.

MP

-I'd be willing to sacrifice less built-in functionality like VIOP for better integrated anti-cheating and in-game spectating options.

.....

The whole point of this thread, even at this stage, is to help "choose our battles" because while a valid point of view is to say, "If they don't completely return R6 to what RS and RvS were like before, I will not buy the game", it is, however, not a realistic view in light of the current state of the games industry, nor is it a helpful one as far as the long term future of the franchise goes.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yen Lo
03-15-2006, 07:09 AM
Both SP and MP. None.
At least for me, we've given up to much already. I think thats reflected in Ubis sales. You can spin whatever, anyway you want, the customers, at least it appears to me, arent willing to settle for less game for more money. With other games coming out there really is no compelling reason for buying Ubi games, except for the Clancy moniker. And with that you'll be seeing less of me at least soon. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Have a nice day.

FI_FlimFlam
03-15-2006, 07:38 AM
That's a hard topic to answer without knowing what they want to take away. You will for the most part get "none".

Multiple teams - I don't find this acceptable as that it is such an important part of the single player experience for me. I MIGHT be able to live with it if they provide a better way of managing your team and perhaps add a couple of people to it. For example a 6 man team with the ability to split into "buddy" teams temporarily in order to cover another hall or breach a room from multiple angles.

I don't think you can say VIOP is an acceptable "loss" since it has never been an option before. Again that falls into the realm of not knowing what the planned feature set is.

At the moment, with LD as the current model to use for features, I would be willing to lose most everything. That would be acceptable to me. There isn't much there worth keeping IMO.

Woosy
03-15-2006, 07:53 AM
There isn't anything you can take away, when you have a standard of gameplay. And if you do take somthing away or add somthing thats not meant to be there you break it as a whole. I guess if push come to shove I'd be willing to sacrifice most of the guns for just 10!

DreamMarine
03-15-2006, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by FI_FlimFlam:
That's a hard topic to answer without knowing what they want to take away.

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

XsargenX
03-15-2006, 08:42 AM
Gezz why you guys gotta be so hardheaded? this is a very simple post! I will defenetly be willing to sacrifice mission planning (obviously having the ingame commands that really work option)for a much much better and order resposive AI. Thats it..Simple!

Thanks,

xSargenX

KungFu_CIA
03-15-2006, 08:45 AM
For the record, I would vote "none" as well, given we don't have any information at all right now...

But I have a feeling we are going to have to choose at least some of our battles -- Hopefully, not large ones -- And I just want to prepare people for this now, so we don't get umpteen-million flames/hysterical posts where people have unrealistic expectations, either.

In a perfect world I wouldn't even have to make a thread like this, nor would the Council even exist since UBI would supposedly be ontop of what its core audience (PC) wants out of the R6 series... But this is not what is happening and again, I am just trying to get a general sense of if and when there are concessions made, what would be acceptable to most of you... Besides "none" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Yen Lo
03-15-2006, 08:57 AM
The more I think about it the, seriously, dumber this is(not a flame on you KF). Iam the damn customer, I dont have to give up chit. If you cant handle not making the game I want just give up the series. People already told you via "Lockdown", bad games wont sell. But so what you want, thats always been whats most important to Ubi. You know, Ive thought about it some more. This to me, sounds more like "well we did this already and now we want to reverse engineer our way out of this mess". Sound like they already decided and are trying to sell their decisions, probably gonna get "Lockdowned for it".

FI_FlimFlam
03-15-2006, 09:21 AM
Honestly I think Vegas or whatever the next installment is - is probably 85% complete (if you accept that it has been in development for the last 2 years and is projected for a Q3 release this year). I have a feeling it is following the model set out by the consoles and tried in LD. I think the time that the council has been formed in an effort to find what needs to be changed to make it palatable to the community inorder to reverse the lashback both from the community and the media.

This concept of acceptable losses seems to be another way of trying to get us to warm up to the current gameplay model that was started by R63 on the Xbox and has evovled to LD. What they are doing with it for VEGAS/Unnamed PC version is probably along those lines. I think they will try to modify that model to make it work more for people - LD was too much too fast for the PC and Console communities. What we shall see is a step back from that model but not a return to the traditional PC model that most want unfortunately. I wonder if UBI asked this (or in so many words) in the council forum first and KFCIA is asking us here to get a feeling of the responses. Probably, the concept of "acceptable losses" is just an effort to find out how much/which changes the community as a whole is willing to endure to ensure better sales of the next iteration based on the current model used that is mostly finished (LD gameplay model).

DreamMarine
03-15-2006, 09:30 AM
I don't think that our decision what we could live without in favor of other features makes any sense.

Let's take this as an example:


Originally posted by XsargenX:
I will defenetly be willing to sacrifice mission planning (obviously having the ingame commands that really work option)for a much much better and order resposive AI.

It might be that it will never be a question if UBI takes EITHER planning phase OR a better AI. Maybe they say: "Hey guys, THAT'S not the problem. The problem lies somewhere else."

UBI has to tell us, what THEY have to or want to decide between (either this or that). Then we can discuss which way we would like to go.

Otherwise it would just be a "shot to the blue" (how you would say in german), meaning that you try to hit something without even KNOWING what to hit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


So, if UBI wants to work with us together... by means of the council... it has to be a DIALOGUE... which usually works in both directions! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Malleus.
03-15-2006, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by Yen Lo:
Both SP and MP. None.

Absolutely. I don't think I have to make sacrifices so that I'm willing buy a game that's not what I wanted it to be ...

KungFu_CIA
03-15-2006, 09:44 AM
I will be upfront as I can with you guys because I think there needs to be more communication between at least someone who may be in the know than with no one at all like the RvS debacle proved to all of us.


1) As stated previously, there has been NO official word given to the Council by Geiger, Goliath, or others about any of the features that will and will not be in the PC version of R6:5.


2) They did not ask, or imply on the Council forums to make a thread like this. I did this on my own because...


3) Basically, this is a worst-case scenario thread I will use in the Council Forums if the time comes to argue for certain features over others IF it turns out they follow the stripped down approach Lockdown and the other console games (Vegas) are using.

Again, we have no official word on anything, this is all speculation, and could be completely wrong.

However, if what FI_FlimFlam, theorizes is true and that is R6:5 will follow the similar stripped down model LD and the console versions use(s)...

Again, the main reason I started this thread is to get a general sense -- For myself -- Of what you would all consider "accetable" in terms of sacrificing certain aspects in order to have another game which may be closer to R6/RvS than Lockdown ever was.

In other words, IF the time comes, I can refer to this thread and say, "Well, since we can't have X, at least consider Y, as Y is what most of the posters on the forum expressed as being their biggest concern".

This is why I started this thread and I have no problems explaining why and will be as open as I can be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Druac
03-15-2006, 10:17 AM
I would accept losing just about everything in Lockdown for an improved RvS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Defuser
03-15-2006, 10:43 AM
Ok, taking this thread at face value and not theorising too heavily over what it could mean for the series, what could I do without...

I don't think there needs to be such a wide amount of weaponary. If time that would have been spent modelling masses of firearms, instead of animating and modelling fastrope insertions, for example, then so be it. I think the vast amount of firearms in the games is somewhat more a symptom of being able to boast a large feature list than of a real gameplay concern. That said, I don't want LESS weaponary, it's just if we could do without, that's what I'd go with. Please bear in mind that this does not mean LESS variety of weapon types, as I don't want the elimination of sniper rifles, for example (in Lockdown they were largely eliminated as there was no real prospect to implement properly, due to the linear maps and the omission of Weber's subplot). If it's anything the series could do without, it's the machineguns, as they've never been properly implemented in SP.

I also think we don't need 'individual personalities' for our operatives, either. I think that if we had just visual differences (face through the goggles, like previous R6s), that would be enough. Lockdown has each operative individually modelled, which is a waste of time. While Lockdown took the 'story approach' and had hollywood style backchat coming from our operatives, I think that's a waste of time and actually detracts from the experience. I would be perfectly happy with a string of APPROPRIATE, realistic speech coming from our operatives rather than individually recorded witicisms with masses of voice-actors for every occasion. R6 got over the prospect of having every operative sound the same by varying the pitch of the voice-sets for men and women depending on the operative. While I'd like accents to be present if operatives hail from different nations, I don't think we need so much individualism. These are operators, not personalities. They do their job with professionalism and level heads. Think - what was one of the first mods for Lockdown? It was to make everybody look like Pak, the balaclava-clad operative. It was to make the operators look more professional, more realistic, and less like they're modelling the latest in designer tactical wear. People were also endeavouring to alter the sound files (which is impossible at the moment) to pevious R6 soundbites to eliminate the moronic chatter of Lockdown. If these are not clear indicators that the PC crowd responds badly to attempts to foster 'likeable' cliched personalities, I don't know what are.

I would also be willing to forego, in multiplayer, 'gimmicky' modes like an attack-and-hold affair like BF2 or 'hunter' modes where one operator has more ammo and armour and the others have to kill him. Things such as that are no replacement for an adequately balanced and well-tested TDM or objective based round such as hostage rescue and bomb defusal. Sorry to be boring, but when well-executed, these two modes are the very best that is available. The memories I have of TDM on CSL during the demo days are some I'll always remember... Similarly, in the early days of RvS when hostage rescue was still widely played (instead of the near dominant TDM nowadays), I used to have a blast guarding the hostages - I'd set up with my MG in the hostage room on the first room, and wait for a rival player to blunder into the room without care for a defender. He'd be cut down, and anyone else, but the following rounds they'd toss in flashes, CS and other aids to flush me out, clearing the room like they should. It would result in me using the hostages like human shields, all kinds of underhand practices, that reflected the reality of what should have transpired in the SP game.

I've never really seen the point of 'lone-wolf' modes, either. If I want to send one operative on a mission, I send one operative - I don't need a entire mode that arbitrarily limits me when I could just do the exact same thing in another.

I must say, however, that I do not have to lower my expectations with regards to games. I judge the games on their individual merits - the fact that somehow we may have to prepare for getting LESS than what we did before is almost a tacit admission that R65 will be less than it's forebears. Looking at the development cycle for this game, its 2 years under development, possibly following a near-identical model to Lockdown, with a few months left and only a month or so since the feedback council was formed, I understand you're only preparing for the worst, but understand this KungFu - people will not buy products they think are lacking in areas that the previous games had. Every R6 up until Lockdown built upon the last - every one had exactly the same feature set, perhaps modified, but nontheless present, plus enhancements. That's what characterises a sequel. The omission of many fundamental gameplay factors to R6 in Lockdown, such as multiple teams, coupled with its broken gameplay mechanic, are what led to it being (almost) universally hated. It was the fact that it was less than what was available before.

Now the things that I have stated above are not central to that which I think constitutes R6 - they are extranneous items that would not compromise the core feature set of what makes R6, R6. Thus, their omission would go not unnoticed, but without incident for most players. If however, anything in the nature of tactics, realism and immersion was omitted, it would break the fundamental core of R6 - like Lockdown did.

reggo
03-15-2006, 11:46 AM
Defuser expressed exactly what I think!

For a matter of formality, I will tell my specific "acceptable losses":

SP:
The 'individual personnalities' gimmick.
But I still want my 29 'bots AND drones' of RvS!

MP:
Voice over IP.

---

I did not buy Lockdown.
Everything looks like I won't buy R6-5.

If one essential ingredient of R6 is missing, I don't buy it. Plain simple!

Brettzies
03-15-2006, 12:01 PM
I actually totally understand where KungFu is coming from and like everyone else, including KungFu, I don't want to see any of the cool features left out. While I think it's great fun to talk and dream about the "ultimate" R6 game, deep down I don't think we are going to get most of it.

We may get some of the things we want, but if they've already started on the game, that means they already have a design doc for it and have been moving forward. It will come down to "what can we fit in the existing code or change to please the players." If their original vision doesn't include half of the things we want, it could be extremely difficult to get them in.

To answer the question is really difficult actually.

Personally, I don't want to give up the planning or teams because that's the essence of the game. Less weapons is easy to give up, but really not that difficult to implement either, so the tradeoff isn't that great for them. Same with each character being modeled "uniquely." It's not actually that difficult. The overdone personalities I could do without, but I think UBI likes that. It's part of the "immersiveness" to them.

If I had to pick, I guess I could be ok with a "no planning" phase. But then I'd like to see something similar to a Swat4 and FullSpecturmWarrior combo and have at least two teams.

Honestly, I think it's a luxury that we even talk about this stuff thinking they might listen to our suggestions. The developer does what they want in the end and UBI is no Valve or Id. Maybe they lose players, maybe they gain another audience. Will any of this result in a better R6 title other then graphically? Who knows.

Squall_Rifleman
03-15-2006, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by FI_FlimFlam:
Honestly I think Vegas or whatever the next installment is - is probably 85% complete (if you accept that it has been in development for the last 2 years and is projected for a Q3 release this year). I have a feeling it is following the model set out by the consoles and tried in LD. I think the time that the council has been formed in an effort to find what needs to be changed to make it palatable to the community inorder to reverse the lashback both from the community and the media.

This concept of acceptable losses seems to be another way of trying to get us to warm up to the current gameplay model that was started by R63 on the Xbox and has evovled to LD. What they are doing with it for VEGAS/Unnamed PC version is probably along those lines. I think they will try to modify that model to make it work more for people - LD was too much too fast for the PC and Console communities. What we shall see is a step back from that model but not a return to the traditional PC model that most want unfortunately. I wonder if UBI asked this (or in so many words) in the council forum first and KFCIA is asking us here to get a feeling of the responses. Probably, the concept of "acceptable losses" is just an effort to find out how much/which changes the community as a whole is willing to endure to ensure better sales of the next iteration based on the current model used that is mostly finished (LD gameplay model).
Exactly my thoughts, FlimFlam.
Fact is, Rainbow Six started as something we enjoyed and liked 7-8 years ago. If Ubisoft is really willing to do something that will please the community, they shouldn't expect the community to "sacrifice" anything.

I want mission planning, I want multiple teams, I want decent A.I., I want a decent multiplayer system/network, just like previous R6 titles had (with the exception of Raven Shield for the latter two).
If there are things I'm willing to sacrifice are mostly those features included in these inferior latest titles, such as the "personality" BS and character customization. I also don't care for a huge amount of weapons, but if you ask me, it's been a few years since Rogue Spear was released, and if that game could deliver the core elements, then Rainbow Six 5 should deliver that and much more.

KungFu_CIA
03-15-2006, 12:31 PM
Defuser:

You bring up some good points and I like how you turned the question around and looked at it the other way as this may be more beneficial in the long run.

Brettzies:

The weapon issue is something the Council has talked about briefly -- At the request of Golaith -- And there seems to be the same thought process which Defuser brings up and that is we don't want less weapons than previous R6 games, but we don't want just "fluff" guns to be added to the arsenal just so the game can boast about the arsenal size as a bullet point on a marketing sheet somewhere either.

In other words, I argree that if we had to cut corners, I would rather have, for example, 30 well balanced and effective weapons (SMG; Snipers; Assault Rifles; Shotguns; Pistols; etc.) than perhaps 50 simply because a lot of the 50 weapons probably wouldn't even be used because when arsenals get this big, nine times out of ten, the arsenal isn't really that balanced when you get down to it and there are only a few weapons the majority of players, both SP and MP, will use as they are the ones to get the job done while the others remain "unused" model, sound and amination code sitting on your HDD.

....

Maybe a better way to phrase this question is do what Defuser said, and that is ask...


What makes R6 great that we CAN'T afford to lose if push comes to shove?

We've gone into the details a thousand times like multiple teams, planning, etc...

But I want talk about something which I think is at a very core aspect and will influence a lot of other design decisions -- at least, I hope the devs have already considered these things -- And that is, what makes R6 great for me is:

-Upredictability (SP and MP)
-Tension resulting from unpredictibility

If we were to strip away all surface elements of the realism of R6, this is the essence of what I personally think what makes R6 a unique and fun game no other game has managed to replicate.

The tension provided by the unpredictable nature of the missions and the fact you and your team could be taken out at any moment. It isn't cheesy voice acting, not individual "character" development and other marketing gimmicks UBI thinks makes R6 great.

The problem, however, is UBI seems hell-bent on this "immersive storytelling" approach which means less and less open-ended play because they can't control where the storytelling parts will be because they don't know where the player is going to be at any given moment unlike a linear map where they can "shock and awe" you like you are on some carnival ride.

The "game as interactive movie" is the model UBI and all game companies are now following and it is a WRONG model, in my humble opinion, because games are meant to be GAMES and NOT movies. As cliched as this sounds, if I wanted to watch a movie, I'd rent one...

But this message has fallen on deaf ears across the mainstream gaming industry as they keep turning out scripted, linear SP experiences that have absolutely ZERO replay value after the initial play through.

This is also why I am advocating something I put on the Council forums called "An SP Expreience that Feels like an MP Experience" because a big part of what makes MP more interesting than scripted SP is its unpredictability, hands down. No two MP sessions are ever the same. Never.

This is another element the original R6 games and their expansions also pioneered as well because Terrorist Hunt in SP, for example, is about as an unpredictable SP experience you can have offline because you don't know where the Tangos will spawn and you don't know if you and your team (if you use them) are going to survive... Just like when you are playing MP with real people.

These are just some of the keys to R6's past success.

These are the things I and my fellow Council members fight for in R6 and I can only hope they don't fall on deaf ears as well.

reggo
03-15-2006, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by Defuser:
I've never really seen the point of 'lone-wolf' modes, either. If I want to send one operative on a mission, I send one operative - I don't need a entire mode that arbitrarily limits me when I could just do the exact same thing in another.


It may sound like a subtlety, but the lone wolf mode should not be though as a 'terro hunt with one operative' mode.

For me, the 'lone wolf' mode is an 'EVADE AND ESCAPE' mode.

You can see that on many past R6 maps, where the insertion point for 'lone wolf' is set in a very different place than the 'mission' and 'terro hunt' modes. The insertion point is instead located more in 'hostile territory' and the extraction point is a rather safe point (and is often the insertion point of the terro hunt mode).

Properly implemented (I mean in the 'EVADE AND ESCAPE' spirit), this mode is another distinctive feature of R6 and should not be abandoned.

Relenquish
03-15-2006, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
3) Basically, this is a worst-case scenario thread I will use in the Council Forums if the time comes to argue for certain features over others IF it turns out they follow the stripped down approach Lockdown and the other console games (Vegas) are using.


If this situation arises heres my advice. Dont ask for our opinion. You will not be helping us or UBI. IN this senerio tell them to go ask the target audience. Asking us will only give false hope and cause more problems when the games released.

Infact I have a request.

Could the council get out of ubi who exactly the games aimed at. An honest answer to this could save us shed loads of time and thought. If its aimed at us that will only increase our enthusiasm. If its aimed at a "wider audience", as it currently seems to be, then thats ok, I feel it could work, and its the impression I am under at the moment.

If its aimed to be the same audience as Lockdown, we will all be able to spend our time more effectively then reading these forums and thinking up ideas for the 1st or 2nd scenerio.

Best Regards

KungFu_CIA
03-15-2006, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Relenquish:

Could the council get out of ubi who exactly the games aimed at. An honest answer to this could save us shed loads of time and thought.

The only thing we (Council) have to work with is what Geiger said and that is help find ways to make R6 more accessible to a wider audience.

Take that as you may, but I am working under the impression they know how badly they screwed up with Lockdown, both PC and console, and are making a genuine effort to rectify this mistake because I think LD did not sell well at all (unconfirmed) which may have finally made the higher-ups realize how baddly they screwed up the franchise since LD may have been the first R6 game on any platform to underperform in terms of its projected sales (again, pure speculation on my part).

Defuser
03-15-2006, 01:04 PM
The distressing thing about most publishers these days are that they see 'games as interactive movies' as a viable route for production. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that when a game with zero replayability but an enjoyable intial experience is released, everybody wants to be a part of that experience and see the 'movie'. Do they come back to it? No they don't (usually). They've spent their money though, and are now looking towards another product to buy. It's this one hit-one off-one time through mentality that the money men are looking at. How many people do you know that repeatedly play through Half Life 2?

This is primarily why a lot of games from big publishers are barely supported once they are released - 9 times out of 10, the original dev team has been disbanded and regrouped into another team to work on another game - sometimes other, unproven dev teams end up working on expansion packs, and have little idea of what is wanted from the original fanbase (Iron Wrath) provided there is still money to be made from an existing fanbase. This is also the principle reason behind episodic gaming (in my opinion) because if you'll notice, most of the proponents of episodic gaming (such as Valve and Ritual) make one off-one hit-rigidly linear yet cinematic 'experiences', rather than 'games'. It is in this high turnout and high turnover world that they operate - games as linear pieces of entertainment that can be pushed out in episodic form, to be purchased and delivered electronically to minimise the amount of hassle and money boxing and distributing a game entails, at a high rate.

Not a lot of people are making 'sim' games anymore apart from independent developers and publishers. The tragic fact is that there is a gap in the market for non-linear and open-ended gameplay (because ask any tactical shooter fan and they'll tell you that's what they want) but none of the major publishers want to go anywhere near it because it means that the fanbase for the existing game will last so long, that their willingness to transfer themselves to a new, semi-episodic linear update of their favourite franchise will not be present - again, look at Lockdown as a violent reaction against an attempt to take the series 'cinematic'. Some genres literally cannot be forced into role because their core gameplay mechanic demands at least a shred of non-linearity, like tactical shooters.

Relenquish
03-15-2006, 01:11 PM
I really should of put the word try into there.

Anyhow I know you havent been given much, which I think is kind of messed up. But this piece of information is pretty important. And when you guys arent even sure on things its pretty hard know what ubi is aiming to achieve.

I think we are all hoping Ubis learnt from their mistake.

It seems wierd to be discussing a game and not even know if its targetted at us. I guess before I just prosumed, but now I am a bit worried.

I mean the more I think about it, the harder it gets to believe. Ubi didnt say who LD was aimed at. It was clearly at more casual gamers than previous titles, but they didnt mention it. Thus lots of disappointment.

Most companies would clearly state this kind of major change to the direction of a series.

Honestly, large seceretive companies, cant live with them, cant live without them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

subzero1900
03-15-2006, 01:32 PM
You know what would be an acceptable loss?

Them delaying the game for another YEAR and giving the Consumers a game that WE want.

FFS is this buisness practice outdated?

Relenquish
03-15-2006, 01:50 PM
I would rather say what I am not prepared to sacrifice over than say what I am.

1. Choice. If I had one word to sum up why Rainbow Six is so great, choice would be the word. No other game has the amount RS has. You chooce, who (soul switching) , when (it doesnt rush you), with (what equipment etc.), where (different routes) and how.

2. Realism. Certain parts of RS need more realism. But no parts need less. Over all the game should move towards realism, definately not away from it. I would be extremely dissapointed if it moved away from it. Things like ammo should not be in pools.

3. Change. This I feel is pretty important. Don't sacrifice changing the game for the better because your worried people will not like it. We expect change to happen. But make sure its good change. There are many great ideas buzzing around on these forums. And to keep up with modern times and improve the game, some of them really need to be implemented. Some people say you should go back to earlier games and just redo what they had. That would leave me bitterly disappointed and I wouldnt buy a game which is 3 or more years old.

Edit


You know what would be an acceptable loss?

Them delaying the game for another YEAR and giving the Consumers a game that WE want.

FFS is this buisness practice outdated?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Best Regards

Yen Lo
03-15-2006, 01:53 PM
Sorry if I came harsh everybody, but realistically , the consumers have spoken with Lockdown. Anymore of that "stuff" and R6 5 will bomb too. Seriously, all I want is a good game to play.

Vert22110
03-15-2006, 02:07 PM
I think the question should be:

"What do you NOT want to see lost?"

Ubisoft is making a huge mistake with this 'plan'. It makes no sense whatsoever to remove features that were perfectly functional... trying to make sense of it is a waste of energy.

Again, Ubisoft is completely ignorant to their competition. If I want to play a game where features are IMPROVED not REMOVED, I would rather play a Blizzard or VALVe game. No fan wants to hear about 'Acceptable Losses' (I know you don't represent Ubi KF, but it just doesn't sound good) to a series that used to be perfectly functional (prior LD, even prior RVS).

My answer is, simply, none. No features that were present in Ravenshield are worth removal (don't even start to tell me planning should be removed, it was optional and it gave the game another level of replay value). If you want to take away features from the series then, like LD, I won't buy it. Instead, I'll spend my 50 bucks on a game I know thats going to have the features I want and be properly supported. Simple as that.

Defuser
03-15-2006, 02:12 PM
At this stage in the development, hell, at ANY stage of the development I would be ecstatically happy to hear them announce that they are delaying the game to give us the version we deserve - and mean it. That, coupled with at least something of an admission that they are working towards what everybody on here is striving for, a large proportion of the council AND I'd wager a large amount of the games buying public are also striving for too, then we'd all have cause to sit back and enjoy the development process of a game that is being made with the fans in mind.

Now, what I want to remain is a sentiment that has been echoed by large amounts of people on these boards and across the vast swathes of fansites concerning this franchise - we want, above all, choice. This choice stems from the ability to implement various tactics in various ways, but always within realistic limits. To do so, you need non-linear game elements. You need non-linear map design and non-linear planning options (such as multiple teams and the division of operators into such teams).

If you asked me in a two-word answer what I wanted overall from the game, it would be:

A REALISTIC EXPERIENCE.

Give us the freedom to implement realistic tactics by designing a game world that adheres to the rules of real-life tactical operations. It doesn't have to be absolute realism, far from it... but it has to be utterly believable. It has to be utterly immersive. Don't drop us out of the experience with hollywood squad banter. Don't have us run through a shooting gallery like Lockdown that only serves to highlight how linear the game really is, and is thus, a game. Don't have us shoot an unarmoured target with a rifle round and have him shrug it off with barely a whimper...

In short, give us the operators (AI), the weapons (well-modelled firearms) and the target (believable locations with good tango AI), and let us assault it in our own way (with multiple teams and a planning phase). This, I believe, is the essence of R6.

We can talk about individual things such as how recoil should be best modelled and what tangoes should be capable of on a mission and so forth, or how the planning phase is to be conducted, but if any of the basic factors above are compromised, then it simply isn't R6.

Brettzies
03-15-2006, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
[
The weapon issue is something the Council has talked about briefly -- At the request of Golaith -- And there seems to be the same thought process which Defuser brings up and that is we don't want less weapons than previous R6 games, but we don't want just "fluff" guns to be added to the arsenal just so the game can boast about the arsenal size as a bullet point on a marketing sheet somewhere either.

In other words, I argree that if we had to cut corners, I would rather have, for example, 30 well balanced and effective weapons (SMG; Snipers; Assault Rifles; Shotguns; Pistols; etc.) than perhaps 50 simply because a lot of the 50 weapons probably wouldn't even be used because when arsenals get this big, nine times out of ten, the arsenal isn't really that balanced when you get down to it and there are only a few weapons the majority of players, both SP and MP, will use as they are the ones to get the job done while the others remain "unused" model, sound and amination code sitting on your HDD.

Actually, a reduced set of weapons wouldn't bother me if they were really well done and gave them time to focus on other aspects. However, I'd like to see them do what Swat did, and provide and extensive tutorial on making weapons for the game, that way the community could at least bring in new weapons without all the guess work. I've learned more in one day with Swat Modding then 3 or 4 weeks trying to get Rvs to do much.

Thump248th
03-15-2006, 03:07 PM
What more do they want to take away or is to take away?


They have to give us back the functionality of Rainbow Six before they can take it away again....

Mark__Lyndon
03-15-2006, 03:43 PM
http://www.dcds.forces.gc.ca/units/jtf2/pages/webcast_e.asp

Kind of gives you an idea of the dynamic and lightning fast tactics required for counter terrorism.

Mystafyi
03-15-2006, 05:25 PM
Nice Video Mark, and Yes thats what Rainbow should be like. Bad ***, cream of the crop, touch as nails Special Ops.

Goliath.Ubi.Dev
03-15-2006, 05:31 PM
Ubisoft has never asked the council to plan for a worst case scenario or to drop features or to make up new ones.

The pc version has only been announced, what it is what it runs on who it is for is as of yet NOT announced.

I would advise everyone to take this with a grain of salt, participate if you wish but this is not in any way our official direction.

Just thought id clear that up after reading a few posts.

Mark__Lyndon
03-16-2006, 12:45 AM
Precisely. Absolute tough as hell, bad ***, professional soldiers.

Not hollywood bravado bad ***. I mean like when the guy screams "GET...UP!" and yanks the hostage to get him moving. Professionally tough but efficient and certainly not cinematic. Just real "hey this is how it's going down, get moving."

DreamMarine
03-16-2006, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by Defuser:
Not a lot of people are making 'sim' games anymore apart from independent developers and publishers. The tragic fact is that there is a gap in the market for non-linear and open-ended gameplay (because ask any tactical shooter fan and they'll tell you that's what they want) but none of the major publishers want to go anywhere near it because it means that the fanbase for the existing game will last so long, that their willingness to transfer themselves to a new, semi-episodic linear update of their favourite franchise will not be present - again, look at Lockdown as a violent reaction against an attempt to take the series 'cinematic'. Some genres literally cannot be forced into role because their core gameplay mechanic demands at least a shred of non-linearity, like tactical shooters.

Very good point. That's the way marketing is usually thinking. They WANT short product cycles, so that people go on to the next game and spend money on it.

What to do against this development in gaming industry?

Actually, I would prefer the WoW model, where you monthly pay a certain small amount of money as long as you play the game. For the money the game company or publisher features many official servers with 1a support and continuously new content (each month some new maps for example).

This way, all are happy. The game company gets its profit from a monthly paying fanbase. And I can be sure, that they REALLY care about the game and me as their customer... that i play on good servers... that i get some new content each month.

I think, this model might actually work with more than just MMPORPG!

That's exactly my "acceptable loss" for a great gameplay experience: 5 EUR per month! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

What do ya guys think about that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DreamMarine

Relenquish
03-16-2006, 08:50 AM
I do not see if working. If more popular games like BF2 and UT are not doing it, I dont see how RS will pull it off.

Some people would pay the cash. But in all likely hood it would just drive away poteintal customers.

dave819831983
03-18-2006, 11:54 AM
In my opinion these MUST stay

SP - multiple teams, planning, non linear maps. (this is what SP R6 is all about!)

MP - an mp game that works, no respawns, rainbow v rainbow

fedayn81
03-19-2006, 03:12 AM
after LD, we'd stay here to talk about IMPROVEMENT for next game and not losses.

we get too losses in LD...

FlashMeBangMe
03-20-2006, 08:46 AM
I'd sacrifice my left arm for the actual release date http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif.

Suhoi-35
03-31-2006, 10:47 AM
I think that the new R6 game should contain all parts of modern counter terrorist warfare:

1.The mission planning phase should be as important as it is in real life. We all know the operations that resulted in a failure because of the poor planning or the lack of it. If the game wants to retain its "Tactical Shooter" title this part of it should not be removed.
But from my point of view I found the planning phase in RvS slightly unrealistic. I don't think that the CT teams have the complete blueprints of the buildings they plan to enter and clear. There should be some means of intelligence data gathering like in real world situations.

2. Weapon & equipment. The need for a huge weapons collection is not necessary. The special ops usually have the same set of weapons (except some team members with special tasks like snipers).
I have no idea what will be the future of the special equipment. For example I found the Heart Beat Sensor nice tool but its use is somehow unrealistic because I haven't heard that this kind of device was ever developed.

3. Improved AI for the Single Player mode. The AI controlled team members should perform some drills (room entry&clearing, shooting, tactical movement, etc) as real as possible. The game called The Regiment has these things included and it adds the experience of what should the real-world action look like. The AI controlled teammates should also perform covering duties (they should cover the team movement, watch for any hiding spots where the Tangos may be hiding), corner drills (i.e. pie the corner before they pass it), etc.

4.The game engine should have decent physics implemented (since the computers are every day better and faster the development should follow that).

5. The extensive training phase should be added. The poor training phase is unfortunately present in many Tactical Shooter games although this can be very valuable aid for new players and can also serve as the "refreshment course" for any other player. It should teach anything about shooting, team movement, CQB drills (just like The Regiment does). It's better to practice these things in the game than learning from the text and pictures in the book.

Shrike_UK
04-20-2006, 12:38 PM
If you have losses then im not buying it, same as the losses in lockdown, i didnt buy it.

Improvements are welcome not losses.

If you cannot improve on RvS then dont bother making a new one and let us have a rolled up DVD with all the patches merged into one install package plus AS and IW, plus a new addon. Sell this full price and i will pay, because its much less hassle with the install and it would have a new addon built in. Also, release an SDK for weapon and uniform mods.

Forget R6V if you cannot improve on RvS.

Dirtydog28
04-21-2006, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by Shrike_UK:
If you have losses then im not buying it, same as the losses in lockdown, i didnt buy it.

Improvements are welcome not losses.

If you cannot improve on RvS then dont bother making a new one and let us have a rolled up DVD with all the patches merged into one install package plus AS and IW, plus a new addon. Sell this full price and i will pay, because its much less hassle with the install and it would have a new addon built in. Also, release an SDK for weapon and uniform mods.

Forget R6V if you cannot improve on RvS.


Well put!!

GSG_9_Rage
04-25-2006, 05:52 AM
Havent read the last three pages, but we should not have to sacrifice any kind of gameplay that has been in the series already.

xGrimreaperx
04-30-2006, 04:30 AM
the unreal game engine version 3.0 looks mighty good right about now. unreal engine is a good solid enigine I think(they just need to button up some open areas of it). I can't wait to see what america's army has done with it later this year early next. Ubi might take a cue from that game. Not a fan of most of amercia's army set up. I like to keep squads small. I dont want to play in a server that holds 32 actually. the more allowed players the more you have to boot idiots out of your server. 16 is just fine for me. heck I get tk'd a lot with only 8 on my team. I definately hate and despise respawning fps games it should be outlawed!!!

I haven't read the first 3 pages either I don't think we should have to sacrafice anything. the dev need to quit confusing pc games with console ports. We as pc gamers do not want the same thing as consolers do. They keep trying to make pc games look like console games and it is disturbing. If they want to make a good console game for pc where is a good boxing game or make madden better on pc.
I want smooth gameplay, interesting maps, as close to cheat free as possible( cause somebody always figures out a way to hack) The eye candy is ok, but keep in mind not everybody can buy 2 512 mb sli or crossfire vid cards to run your games great. I don't think I am asking alot.

dindiface
05-02-2006, 09:34 PM
I am not willing to sacrifice anything compared to RS.

I want as many teams as before, but nicer graphics, realistic physics, and VOIP integrated a decent way! (without button press as in the xbox BA series)

I have a computer that is like 3x faster than the one that ran RS back then, whatever you take away is just an excuse for a fast release.


Ohh ... i can sacrifice complete Single Player for a MP that has a LOT OF game modes, so it is not like just LMS all the time which I am tired of .....

DreamMarine
05-03-2006, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by dindiface:
Ohh ... i can sacrifice complete Single Player for a MP that has a LOT OF game modes, so it is not like just LMS all the time which I am tired of .....

I definitely not!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DreamMarine

Pest_AWC
05-03-2006, 01:31 PM
I just posted the recipe for a future Rainbow Six PC game under its own topic.

But I will say you can leave out VOIP. Teamspeak is just fine and my clan uses it in whatever game we are playing. When not playing with my group I find all of the public chatter on games that have it included to be useless and annoying and it usually gets turned off.

It is a simple process : Create Ravenshield using a new engine, add some stuff, have server side options to turn off any new stuff, have new maps...then I will buy it.

If any other game manufacturers are reading this thread, please do what I ask and do it under a name that is not Rainbow Six and you will take on all of the Ravenshield fans and keep them as long as you don't mess up what works and is proven. The name Rainbow Six has already been tarnished enough that it isn't relevant.

For those that like Ravenshield objectives like Hostage and Bomb, stop by the AWC server on Wed and Fri night. We are usually running Athena Sword. We have a backup server that we don't usually use, so look for the AWC server with players on it.

Pest<<[AWC]>>

dindiface
05-08-2006, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by DreamMarine:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dindiface:
Ohh ... i can sacrifice complete Single Player for a MP that has a LOT OF game modes, so it is not like just LMS all the time which I am tired of .....

I definitely not!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DreamMarine </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe me neither http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif the sacrifice ... but tired of LMS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - yes ..

I did not mean, that I want respawns, I just meant, that it would be great to actually play defuse/plant bomb, hostage stuff, or modes that would promote one team to advance, while the other to hide and camp and use the claymore a lot .... (like protecting a building/person) ..

Oh well, I played RVS yesterday, and I realized, that I do not even know if I want an other game, it's just that no one is playing Iron Wrath and no one is playing anything other than "let's run towards each other and kill-kill-kill" ...

I would like to see games that you could do all tactical, even without firing a shot, and a house with multiple entry points and some good objective would make it pretty much possible ...

dindiface
05-08-2006, 11:13 AM
F.E.A.R.

I might be a bit late with this, but I just checked out the game FEAR, and I realized, that actually that engine (as it is) would be a perfect base for a tactical game.

1. You have peek implemented OK
2. some malee attacks (O.K. for RS-type game they need to be tweaked to a realistic level)
3. Immersive graphics effects, stuff flying when in a shootout, fire, breaking glass, etc ..

All it needs is realistic character models, and realistic guns ..


I am not saying I love fear, or the run and gun gameplay, I just say, that if you played a game that is RAVEN SHIELD, with graphics that is of FEAR, that would be a rather delightful experience....


On the other hand, I would just keep playing RVS if it had a damn decent VOIP ... sure, when you are in a clan you use teamspeak, but when you just join servers there is no VOIP to shout "behind you" .... oh well ...


Maybe ubi should have added VOIP to Iron Wrath, and instead of giving it away, should have charged $19.95. That way people would have valued it and played it ...