PDA

View Full Version : On the subject of listening to the "hardcores"



Nomad_381
04-16-2006, 09:01 PM
Whenever a heated argument gets started over how the series should return to the feel and style of RS3 and BA vs. the new direction with Lockdown and Critical hour, inevitably someone chimes in with the age old comment of "Why should Ubi listen to the 'hardcores' on the board, all they care about is selling to the masses." Well, I'm here to answer that challenge. Listening to the so-called "hardcores" is exactly what Ubi should do if they want to sell millions of copies. The "hardcores" are the people who have spent countless hours playing the game and finding every nuance that makes the game great and every little flaw that holds it back. "Hardcores" of the RS series are not some special guild of people who only like the the parts of the game that cause it to meet some inaccessible to the public fringe guidelines. They are people who love games in general. They are people who bought and played games before RS ever existed, including games that have nothing to do with tactical combat. How many of you only buy or play tactical combat games? How many of you played games before the genre even existed and were labeled "unimportant hardcores" in other genres of which you played heavily?

What I am getting at is that RS "hardcores" are hardcore by the virtue of loving games. They are some of the most well equipped people in the world to give feedback worth listening to and taking into serious consideration. When's the last time a fantastic game came out and there were no "hardcores" which came out of the woodwork for that game? When was the last time a shoddy low-selling product developed a community of hardcore players? How many Lockdown and Critical Hour "hardcores" have you met or talked to, whether online or through the message boards? The hardcores are the players who love the game the most and play it the most, and not because of some strange enigmatic reasons, but rather for the exact same reasons any other player in the world would pick up and play the game - for its good qualities. In general their suggestions involve improving those great qualities they know so well from their play time and cutting away those flaws they also know inside and out. Sure, sometimes "hardcores" get carried away with their suggestions and their complaints, getting too big and ambitious with what they want to see in the future to make the game even better, but by and large these are the few.

The best video game franchises and the best developers listen closely to what their games most avid players have to say. As an example I'll use Starcraft, for the PC. What did Blizzard do once they released the game? They listened intently to the games best players and used their thoughts to slowly craft the most balanced and most played (count the total number of games ever played on starcraft, I dare you) RTS of all time. The game is still going strong around the world.

I think you get my point. Listening and implementing suggestions from "hardcore" players does not alienate the masses, it actually draws them. It brings the games best qualities to the forefront and eliminates its most basic and disrupting flaws. Ubi, I hope my wiriting of this is completely irrelevant at this point. I hope you have already realized what I've said and started listening closely to the people who play your games the most, for the sake of the future of this franchise.

Darth_SS
04-16-2006, 10:08 PM
Okay, this thread is partially directed at my comments in the "Will Vegas be a dissapointment" thread.

I'm agreeing with you only to a certain extent. There hits a certain level when a game isn't accessible enough, and much fewer will buy it because of the radical difference from mainstream. An example would be Full Spectrum Warrior. It is a good game, and has had good sales, but many dismiss it due to the radical difference.

When people claim that should need to practice to be good at a game then I believe that the developers and fans are a bit too far. I'm also standing by my opinion that spewing hatred at a developper which has an extremely good track record for the grounds that they "strayed too far from the game's roots." isn't an effective means of convincing them to change. Neither is assumption really. Thinking you know what the reality of CQB is like, and actually knowing the reality are two completely seperate things. Unless you actually know what it's like, I'm of the opinion you shouldn't scream at Ubisoft to make it more real.

A fine example. I played Black Arrow with my uncle, who is on a SWAT team. He said "Sure, they hold their guns right and the corner peaking is the best they could do, I guess, but this is far too slow. The actual act of going in and clearing is much much faster." They made Lockdown faster (Though the action bits were too over-the-top) What did the "hardcore" scream? That in reality, it's much slower and the pacing should be slower.

Basically, to the "hardcore" out there: Just chill. It's just a game. There's much more to life. If there's a game breaking problem, it will be fixed. If the entire fan-base, not just these forums, is repelled, it will be changed. Ubisoft is in an industry where poor quality will result in loss of sales, so it is in their best interests to make the best product that can appeal to as many people as possible.
Chill.

Back to the original argument:

I'm sorry, but I personally find that whenever some unprecedented game comes out, people immediately fall in love with it. Then, when they try to change something to actually make a better game, people complain as it's not in the original. In these events, the "hardcore" hinder progress instead of facilitating it. These same people are also usually the ones who derive personal offence from something not working, as opposed to dissapointment. There is a very fine line between listening to a fan-base, and catering to the extremes. Solely judging by the Rainbow Six forums here is a bad basis for a market. The reality is that only the die-hards would join this forum. Another, very sad reality, is that many people who join this forum would be people who get more than a game out of R6. They actually feed some personal desire and need, and they don't want their source altered or modified. If Ubi caters to these forums, then to the more extremes, they will alienate more and more people, while catering to a more exclusive group.

What am I saying? Damned if you, damned if you don't. I think the reason that Blizzard handled Starcraft so well is that they canvassed more than just the die-hards. They canvassed gamers of all types. I think Ubi should really be adopting a policy much more like that.

KungFu_CIA
04-17-2006, 01:49 PM
The key issue is this:

Making a franchise or sequel to a game more accessible to the so-called masses, I.E. casual gamers, should mean simplifying the overall gaming experience, but NOT dumb-down the core gameplay mechanics which made the original games unique and challenging in the first place.

This is the crucial factor a lot of game developers and publishers either consciously or subconsciously misinterpret and often end up over-simplifying the core gameplay mechanics instead of the overall gaming experience.

What is the difference between the two?

An overall game experience includes things like installing the game, I.E. one DVD instead of five CDs; configuring the controls; setting up and maintaining an MP server; etc.

The core gameplay mechanics mean just that.

For example, if a game originally had a challenging ballistics system because of simulated recoil... Like Raven Shield; R63 and BA... Devs shouldn't just remove the recoil like they did in Lockdown and add auto-aim as an extreme example.

This is the one area the games industry often goes wrong and why a lot of games, not just R6 and FPS, are said to be getting easier and easier to play... Because the core gameplay is becoming easier and easier while the overall gameplay experience hasn't changed that much.

A perfect example of this is why UBI seems so intent on removing the planning phase for multiple teams the original R6 games on PC included.

They think players just want to "jump in and shoot stuff" when it was the multiple teams and pre-planning which made R6 a unique game in the FPS genre in the first place.

However, the bigger issue with the pre-planning is what is called "Clarity of Experience" in that a lot of us R6 PC players believe the real reason UBI wants to get rid of this feature is the feature itself was too complicated for most casual (beginner) players to use, thus, they always skipped it and just jumped right in and "started shooting stuff".

Here is the whole point about making the overall game experience more simple, but not simplifying the overall game play mechanics:

They could put the planning and multiple teams back into R6 (the next version) if they also did the following:

1) Better AI so the plans made by the player could actually be carried out with a modicrum of success as opposed to now where the player has to babysit the brain-dead AI.

By doing this, this would encourage newer players to actually want learn how to USE this feature since if the feature works, it gives the player more confidence to want to use it.

2) The actual planning interface is overly complicated.

This is the real reason a lot of us PC fans believe UBI is abandoning this one unique element which made R6 different from other FPS.

The planning interface is NOT user-friendly and IS very intimidating to someone who doesn't know what they are doing...

But this is the point I am trying to make. If they could simplify the interface and include tutorials on HOW to use it... There is no reason, in my and many others opinions, the planning phase should NOT be included in the next PC version of R6... And maybe, even the console versions if they simplified the interface so much you could use a control pad as well as a mouse and keyboard.

Granted, most people want a game and not a simulator -- moreso on consoles than PC -- But this is also misinterpreted as everyone supposedly wants a game that is so easy to pick up and play it takes no time to become proficient at (no learning curve; skill gap), so the players ultimately grow tired of the game within a few weeks and move onto something else. The average post-sales life cycle of a game used to be six months even with MP. It is probably around half that now, maybe even a few weeks depending on how good or bad the game is given the rate at which games are released these days.

So, yes, while the "hardcore" players will always be in the minority and often have a louder voice on forums like these...

The sad truth is now that games is a 125 billion dollar a year (2004) industry, it will continue to be aimed at the larger market, the casual gamer and games made according to feedback given by casual gamers as they are a bigger market share -- and always have been if we are going to be honest -- Than the so-called hardcore and die-hard fans.

The only time this is in the games favor is when actual improvements suggested by casual gamers actually IMPROVE the core gameplay and don't destroy it.

Case in point is Civiliation IV and Tomb Raider : Legend.

Both games were released recently and have been getting more or less positive reviews from both hardcore and casual gamres alike...

Because the improvements made to both of these titles were actual improvements and didn't drastically alter the core gameplay which made the previous games popular in the first place.

In TR:L's case... Lara Croft now moves much, much more fluid than ever and more in line with contemporary games like Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia. This is a long over-due improvement because it makes the overall game experience less frustrating for both new and veteran TR players alike.

The same can be said of Civ4. The core strategic elements are there as well as new and improved features that don't alter the core gameplay mechanics, but improve on them and bring them in line with more contemporary RTS games and concepts.

This is the positive aspect marketing games to "the masses" can have, but it is rare and often doesn't turn out this way, unfortunately.

KungFu_CIA
04-18-2006, 08:05 AM
In an ironic twist of fate, Gamespy just did a really interesting article on "hardcore gamers":

Do Hardcore Gamers Still Matter? (http://www.gamespy.com/articles/701/701787p1.html)

This was posted on the R6:5 PC forum by Desol, and is worth reading if you want real insight into how various people in the games industry think and the direction the industry is headed as a whole.

Nomad_381
04-19-2006, 10:36 AM
Great article KungFu, thanks for posting it. I actually think the majority of it echoes what I was getting at in my post if you look at it the right way. "Hardcore" gamers are the ones who spread the word about a great game and they are the first ot recognize its good features while calling out the bad. Yes, in some cases their suggestions and ideas push the envelope too far in niche directions, but by and large they suggest things that the casual and the hardcore alike will enjoy in a game.

Darth, in your post you sort of allude to the idea that every "hardcore" on here advocates a super realistic simulation. I dont believe this to be the case, many of us just want a good game that is in the spirit of Rainbow with some realistic qualities that make it a believable game while still maximizing the fun factor.

KungFu_CIA
04-19-2006, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Nomad_381:

Darth, in your post you sort of allude to the idea that every "hardcore" on here advocates a super realistic simulation. I dont believe this to be the case, many of us just want a good game that is in the spirit of Rainbow with some realistic qualities that make it a believable game while still maximizing the fun factor.

I agree and think this is another part of the equation which is often misconstrued, or misunderstood -- by both casual gamers and game developers alike -- That so-called "hardcore" gamers want ultra-realistic simulators and not games.

R6 -- the original, R6 series on PC -- Was FAR from a realistic simulation... But it had enough elements to make it MORE realistic than what was currently on the market at the time (1998) such as Quake, Half-Life and Unreal Tournament.

We also have to remember the entire gaming industry as a whole was at a very different place as well eight years ago too. Games had not gone "mainstream" or become a multi-billion dollar business like it is today. This is also why niche games were more common back then because they weren't actually "niche" games because the industry didn't have any real mainstream standards by which to call a game a niche game back then. R6 was could have been considered mainstream because there wasn't much to choose from in terms of genres and types of games available.

Fast forward to now and everything is vastly different, for better, or for worse.

I don't have a problem with making games more "accessible" so everyone can play it... But as I said in previous posts... Developers have to be able to distinguish the difference between making the overall gaming experience easier -- Because THIS is why consoles outsell PC games more than anything else -- But not making the core gameplay overly simplistic in the process.

Darth_SS
04-19-2006, 09:53 PM
The problem, if you will, that I have with the people on this board is that they seem to always be un-satisfied. You say that they just like to have a fun game with certain qualities that make it realistic.

That's what Lockdown was. It was a fun shooter, and it did have a fair bit of realism thrown into it. In fact, what people complained about the most just could be justified with some explanation and a little suspension of disbelief. Yet, there was and is a massive attack on Ubisoft for Lockdown. What they complain about the most is that it isn't realistic. Personally, this attitude downright boggles me.

Believe me, I know there are those on this forum who don't want a simulator. Believe me, I am unbelievably grateful whenever I read posts by these people. What aggravates is that these are the minoriy. The majority is foolish, and I fear that Ubisoft will mistakenly believe them to be the whole market, and Rainbow Six will become ever more distorted and mutilated than it already is.

Akedo
04-20-2006, 12:46 AM
ok... here goes... i dont care if a company wants to change the "look" or even add new things to a game.... the problem i have is .. the basic movement, the feel of the weapons.. the accuracy.. the hit detection.. the stuff that was already done..figured out ..perfect... why change that and mess with that? i dont care about pec or levels but when i sight a head shot and sqeeze the trigger....they should die... i should not have to put a clip in someone.. (problems i did not have on the previous games(and still dont).. the BASIC STUFF shoot=die and why screw up the feel of the guns? what did you do to pistols? like i said the basic stuff that was already "right" its just such a shame..

KungFu_CIA
04-20-2006, 06:54 AM
The biggest problem with Lockdown was exactly what I said above in they changed the core gameplay mechanics to make the game more casual gamer friendly than trying to change and make the overall game(ing) experience more accessible.

Granted, LD was on a entirely different engine, the Ghost Recon 2.0 engine, but this is part of my point. The GR2 engine is a long-range combat engine and R6 is CQB. This is one major gameplay difference right there and why it doesn't "feel" right.

Two, one of the biggest changes to gameplay was there was no recoil anymore like there was in R63, BA and Raven Shield. This is why people said you could (can) run-and-gun with no accuracy penalties because it is TRUE. There is no or very little recoil which changes how people play the game and this is why people said the gameplay was more arcade than the previous versions of the games... Because once again, it is true. Couple this with the fact it did (does) take more than one shot to kill someone and the comments of it being a more arcade feeling game have more validity compared to the previous R6 games.

Also, one of the biggest reason LD was such a failure across all the platforms was that it was throwback to games from the late '90s with its linear, scripted levels and story-driven atmosphere compared to the previous R6 games. Yes, the previous games had stories and linear levels -- the console versions at least -- But the overall presentation was just much more mature and not full of cliched stereotypes and over-the-top Hollywood Blockbuster-type action in previous games (especially on the PC).

Lockdown was designed for 10-12-year olds. I can tell by the presntation alone, I.E. Grenade throwing circles; cliched voice acting ("Chavez! Get your *** over here!") etc. This right here is a major mistake considering while there may be players this age on consoles, the vast majority of console players are in their teens and early 20s (and up) as a rule and they want more adult, more mature presentations in their games.

This (above) was one major reason LD failed on the PC because the R6 PC crowd is 30+ years and up (all the way to 50 in some cases!) who demand more adult and immersive -- let alone challenging -- Games when it comes to R6 because they/we are sick of run-of-the-mill arcade shooters which LD is trying to emulate in a vain attempt to get a bigger market share already dominated by games like BF2, Counter-Strike and Halo... And those games do it better than LD ever could.

del130528032037
04-20-2006, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by Darth_SS:
The problem, if you will, that I have with the people on this board is that they seem to always be un-satisfied. You say that they just like to have a fun game with certain qualities that make it realistic.

That's what Lockdown was. It was a fun shooter, and it did have a fair bit of realism thrown into it. In fact, what people complained about the most just could be justified with some explanation and a little suspension of disbelief. Yet, there was and is a massive attack on Ubisoft for Lockdown. What they complain about the most is that it isn't realistic. Personally, this attitude downright boggles me.

Believe me, I know there are those on this forum who don't want a simulator. Believe me, I am unbelievably grateful whenever I read posts by these people. What aggravates is that these are the minoriy. The majority is foolish, and I fear that Ubisoft will mistakenly believe them to be the whole market, and Rainbow Six will become ever more distorted and mutilated than it already is.

First Off! The people that are complaining see Ubisoft's Lockdown and Critical hour to be marketing ploys.

Secondly! Those people that always seem to be unsatisfied fit the description of a hardcore Rainbow Six fan, and they are deffinately not going to let Ubisoft walk away with a bad game.

Third! These people who always seem to be unsatisfied usually know what they're talking about. They know what a game should be like to them.

Fourth! The problem lies in Ubisoft. Ubisoft's job is to try to make as many people as they can happy with their games. There are fewer hardcore gamers than there are regular gamers. What Ubisoft is trying to do is sell as many games as they can. You can't make a game

that was solely based on hardcore gamers and expect everyone else to buy it unless the hardcore gamers' opinions match those of the regular gamers.

Though your opinion matters to you, it doesn't neccessarilly matter to Ubisoft. I wish that was the case, but it's not. But, there is power in numbers. Numbers matter to Ubisoft so if you and a group of people share an opinion

on a subject you will be more likely to be heard by Ubisoft.

I complain, personally, because Ubisoft knew what they were doing when they made LD and CH, and because numbers matter I join a group of people that complain, about the same thing so that I will be heard.

Darth_SS
04-20-2006, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by akedo29:
ok... here goes... i dont care if a company wants to change the "look" or even add new things to a game.... the problem i have is .. the basic movement, the feel of the weapons.. the accuracy.. the hit detection.. the stuff that was already done..figured out ..perfect... why change that and mess with that? i dont care about pec or levels but when i sight a head shot and sqeeze the trigger....they should die... i should not have to put a clip in someone.. (problems i did not have on the previous games(and still dont).. the BASIC STUFF shoot=die and why screw up the feel of the guns? what did you do to pistols? like i said the basic stuff that was already "right" its just such a shame..

See, it's stuff like this right here I object too.

This person here says the game didn't "feel" right. This person has never been on a hostage-rescue team of any sort, and I highly doubt that this person was in the military at one point. They say the weapons didn't "feel" right. There is no "feel" to weapons in a video game. There is problems presented by the way they're programmed to act, but there's no "feel." Furthermore, I highly doubt this person has fired enough (illegal to civilian) guns to be able to say "no, the gun should handle more like this." He says he lined up a headshot and the guy didn't die. Obviously, it's not that he missed by a small margin. He shouldn't have to put a clip in someone. When someone is shot, they should just magically fall over and die instantly. Surely, the SAS has it wrong when they double tap the chest, then the head, and then is cautious about the body.


Now responding to KungFu_CIA, whom I want to thank for taking the time to create a legible and mature post.

Now, I've played since Rogue Spear, and I can't say that the core mechanics have changed. You still have a team, you still die fairly quickly, it still focuses mostly on room clearing. The core mechanics haven't changed, just the peripherals.

Also, I'm not going to go out of line and say that special ops can hold their guns steady, because that is physically impossible, but I imagine that they train to keep their guns as steady as they can, and minimize recoil. Most of the guns in Lockdown were weapons that, to the best of my knowledge, feature surprisingly low recoil.

Personally, I think the grenade throwing circles were a more realistic design choice. Not many people have just one generic strength they throw with, and they alter their angle accordingly. People can throw stuff farther or shorter. I think the throw circles were a representation of Ding choosing how hard he was going to throw the grenade.

Now, I will agree that some bits of Lockdown were a bit overdone, but lines like "Chavez, get your *** over here!" don't seem that bad to me. I've talked to the other people with my uncle's SWAT team, and they can be as vulgar as the army reservists I know. They will freely admit that they will swear at each other and say stuff like "Get your ef'ing *** over here, get behind me!" or "Keep covering your ef'ing sight lines!"

Now, I'm mainly a console gamer, so I won't touch the PC argument. However, I do agree with you so far. I'm sixteen, and I do like to see more mature presentation.


And...finally, MightyLordRay, I don't have enough time to tackle all your points, but I'm just going to say...

Your first one? Wrong. Lockdown was an attempt to respond to a changing industry and genre following the collosal dent that Halo 2 made. Ubisoft worked on the assumption that the average gamer was so used to normal FPS's that when faced with something radically different, it would be denied sheerly out of spite. Critical Hour was a knee-jerk reaction to the complaints about lockdown. They took the lockdown engine, and slowed down the pacing and added the Tac-map again. Then, in response to overwhelming demands from these forums for older maps and to bring back the first R6, they did. They gave you your old maps, and they brought back some favorite missions, putting them into the Lockdown engine.

People complained anyways, even after Ubi did their best to appease them without derailing other projects. You see why a large chunk of this forum confuses me?

KungFu_CIA
04-20-2006, 10:32 PM
Darth

The biggest problem is Lockdown -- even for a console game -- Just feels like a game from 1999, 2000-1... Because it is based off that era's technology, I.E. the Ghost Recon engine.

Don't get me wrong. R6 and GR (PC) were great for their time, but as I said, fast forward eight years and not only has technology advanced, so have gamers expectations and standards and THIS (above all else) is why Lockdown didn't do as well -- on any platform -- As UBI thought.

As a personal example, I could not believe they actually made the old Rogue Spear maps LINEAR! To me, this is just one of those "No! That is not possible!" things that actually came true in Critical Hour (SP).

It's stuff like this that spurs the 'hardcore' gamers to bash UBI because it is just illogical and downright a lie for them to say they are returning to the tactical nature of R6... And then remove a crucial element (non-linear maps) which helped R6 pioneer the tactical genre to begin with.

It's also because just as you admitted/stated in that UBI tried to turn R6 into Halo 2 to sell more games... When in fact R6 was successful because it WASN'T like Halo to begin with.

This is the core issue the article brings up and that is how do you make a game more accessible to casual gamers, but still appease the original ('hardcore') fans?

Changing the core gameplay mechanics -- Or, going back eight years because it is similar to other arcade games like Halo -- Is not the answer in my opinion... And apparently, this opinion is valid since Lockdown did not do as well as UBI had hoped if we are going to be totally honest here (whether you like or hate the game).

The other thing is the overall presentation is just so anti-R6 and immature -- chronological age preferences aside -- With the over-the-top Hollywood action sequences, the cliched dialogue and other things which made the game more like a bad Michael Bay film than a Tom Clancy game.

Akedo
04-22-2006, 01:53 AM
Originally posted by akedo29:
ok... here goes... i dont care if a company wants to change the "look" or even add new things to a game.... the problem i have is .. the basic movement, the feel of the weapons.. the accuracy.. the hit detection.. the stuff that was already done..figured out ..perfect... why change that and mess with that? i dont care about pec or levels but when i sight a head shot and sqeeze the trigger....they should die... i should not have to put a clip in someone.. (problems i did not have on the previous games(and still dont).. the BASIC STUFF shoot=die and why screw up the feel of the guns? what did you do to pistols? like i said the basic stuff that was already "right" its just such a shame..

originally posed by Darth_SS
See, it's stuff like this right here I object too.

This person here says the game didn't "feel" right. This person has never been on a hostage-rescue team of any sort, and I highly doubt that this person was in the military at one point. They say the weapons didn't "feel" right. There is no "feel" to weapons in a video game. There is problems presented by the way they're programmed to act, but there's no "feel." Furthermore, I highly doubt this person has fired enough (illegal to civilian) guns to be able to say "no, the gun should handle more like this." He says he lined up a headshot and the guy didn't die. Obviously, it's not that he missed by a small margin. He shouldn't have to put a clip in someone. When someone is shot, they should just magically fall over and die instantly. Surely, the SAS has it wrong when they double tap the chest, then the head, and then is cautious about the body

hi there darth my name is cs williams i am a tactical sharpshooter for the dallas/san antonio swat/hrt and was trained in the marines.. p.s. i mainly use sniper rifles..(psg) in rb6 and mainly black arrow... and usually have the most kills in any room that im in..(provided i have proper team support for the position im in..overwatch etc.. ) if not i use the tar or l85.. depending on the tactical situation we are in\map etc.. and yes if you go back to the original dev vids on rb6 and ba they did extensive research on the " feel" of the weapons and the hit detection to give it an accurate feel..(as MUCH AS POSSIBLE FOR A VIDEO GAME!!) and thats all we can ask... now like i said before.. they got it "right" in those respects.. and have yet to do so again.. now.. pls tell me YOU are going to tell someone who does this for a living what feels "right" (as possible for a videogame) now pls grace us with more of your "wisdom"

Darth_SS
04-22-2006, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by akedo29:
hi there darth my name is cs williams i am a tactical sharpshooter for the dallas/san antonio swat/hrt and was trained in the marines.. p.s. i mainly use sniper rifles..(psg) in rb6 and mainly black arrow... and usually have the most kills in any room that im in..(provided i have proper team support for the position im in..overwatch etc.. ) if not i use the tar or l85.. depending on the tactical situation we are in\map etc.. and yes if you go back to the original dev vids on rb6 and ba they did extensive research on the " feel" of the weapons and the hit detection to give it an accurate feel..(as MUCH AS POSSIBLE FOR A VIDEO GAME!!) and thats all we can ask... now like i said before.. they got it "right" in those respects.. and have yet to do so again.. now.. pls tell me YOU are going to tell someone who does this for a living what feels "right" (as possible for a videogame) now pls grace us with more of your "wisdom"

See, that's exactly what I'm talking about. You are on an HRT team. You do this stuff for a living, you understand what it's like. You know what you're talking about when you say the guns don't "feel" right. Most people on these forums complain that the guns don't "feel" right, and they have no clue what they're talking about.

Also, request for future discussions, if you're going to talk about the feel and such, then please tell me ahead of time if you are on some kind of tactical intervention team. With you, I wouldn't have responded as I did. What I assumed was that you were some sixteen year old who thought that having shot a .22 and played Tom Clancy games made you into an expert. Evidently, I was wrong. And I apologize.

Akedo
04-23-2006, 02:45 AM
hey darth... i understand what you are saying about some ppl who complain.. just to complain.
but there are a LOT of ppl who have been playing this series (rb6) since its inception.. the reason it stood out from the rest of the games at the time, stuff like quake and unreal.(pc) is because of the attention to detail and getting it "right", thats because tom clancy was very involved in the beginning and is famous for being the super technical god of covert ops and tactics! it was a SKILL game. and.. if you had better "aim" and knowledge of tactics you were better.. and that was very frustrating to casual gamers... just like on the console versions rb6 and black arrow.. ppl would be playing quake or doom or halo or whatever.. or other shooters which allowed health regeneration or power-ups.. then were killed 1 or two seconds into the round on these games.. and spent most of their time dead... they either gave up.. said "this game sucks..im gonna go play halo.." cause thay could stay alive longer and actually have some fun.. (or respawn and get luck kills..whateva.. ) not so in these games (until letdown..lock-up whatever.. now lots of ppl play and no offense but mostly younger kids now.. and so the game play has been "dumbed down" to win over the masses.. they hoped to appease the hardcore fans too... but not really.. the almighty$$ always plays a factor.. but that is why if you play rb6 or ba or rogue spear (pc) you will see all the hardcore ppl there and generally an older more experienced crowd) now there are some young very talented players there too... but its not very common .. you will see them mainly on lockdown and now.. CH see.. back in the day redstorm was its own boss..(pretty much) and took there time doing things because they were breaking new ground .. so to speak and they wanted to impress the gaming world.. to "set the standard" and for a long while they did.. but now that they have been bought out by a bigger company.. they go.. hey we want to spend the next few weeks perfecting hit detection.. and gun physics.. and the big company says.. nah instead try to make it more accessible to a wider market... meaning "make the kiddies happy too.. and the casual gamers..
so now.. its no longer a detailed customized niche shooter that sets the standard and requires real skill and tactics.. its just a run of the mill fps with flashy graphics.. and a good ad campaign.. a money machine. the funny thing is.. these skill games like the original rb6, are highly addictive and the fans do become extremely hardcore! so much so that they will spend tons of hours and money on them and bring freinds and pay to compete this leads to real franchises much like magic the gathering,poker,chess, real skill games that last forever and so will the evergrowing fanbase.. casual gamers will jump to the next "new" thing or game that has the biggest ad campaign.. sorry to rail on if anyone agrees pls respond and carry on this message.. if not.. srry to have wasted your time.

doubleTAP5.56mm
04-24-2006, 02:19 AM
What you people call "hardcore", I call Rainbow 6 fans. Period. It is (sorry, WAS) a hardcore game (a sim actually). NOT FOR EVERYONE. And I don't mean just the first game, I mean even RS and RvS.
There are many games that are not for everyone, in different genres, for example Final Fantacy is not for everyone, nor are the realistic PC combat flight sims, or ultra realistc racing sims.
If you've played the real R6 versions on PC, then you see that R6-3 and BA are about as far as the dumbing down should go. Any further would be a total disgrace. Example of dumbing down include
**no team loadout or selecting specialists
**in fact, ino team options of any kind
**all rifles full auto ONLY
**grenade launchers? GRENADE LAUNCHERS!!?
that kind of thing.
I only mention that because some of you refer to the "original" R6-3 and BA, as if those were what R6 is all about, lol.
Anyway, the main problem I see with the console versions is that I see no more Tom Clancy influence or emphasis on real world tactics and ops. It looks like the games are now based on Hollyood's laughable interpretation of the subject matter.

By the way....you know which game the biggest joke in the XbLive Ghost Recon rooms is? No, not Halo, not Quake.....Rainbow 6. That's the game the GR crowd considers a kiddie run/gun game. How sad is THAT? R6 players used to be considered the realism fanatics; now they're considered the run/gun kiddies. The console versions are the reason for that. Something you newcomers should think about before scoffing at the "hardcores", or as I call us, "R6 fans".

KungFu_CIA
04-24-2006, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by doubleTAP5.56mm:
The console versions are the reason for that. Something you newcomers should think about before scoffing at the "hardcores", or as I call us, "R6 fans".

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

Yet another, "I am uber-leet because I played the original R6 on PC and you console kiddies ruined the series" post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I've been playing the original games since '98 too... But I don't think that makes me better than anyone, regardless of the platform the game is on either.

No one is trying to claim the console versions of R6 are the epitome of tactical gameplay... But even for console games, R63 and BA were a good mix of fast action and tactical gameplay as far as being the closet to a one-shot kill on the consoles barring the original Ghost Recon and Island Thunder -- Which is almost a 1:1 port of the PC games. THESE games are true tactical shooters if we are going to get techincal.

Also, R6 and RS are NOT simulators. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but if they were sims they would have things like the weight of gear your carry effect the speed of your character and if you get shot you would bleed out until you bandage it and countless other elements which would make the original R6 games "sims".

In addition, R63 and BA actually do something NONE of the PC games do and that is emphasize SPEED and ACCURACY over stealth. This crucial (yet somehow overlooked) element which defines CQB and HRT was completely ignored in the PC games in favor of a more stealthy and SLOW... Yes, the original PC games are SLOW in comparison to real life... Gameplay.

The MP portion of the original R6 on PC was just as run-and-gun as most games and this is something I still can't fathom as to how most original "R6 fans" as you put it just don't seem seem to remember, or somehow conveniently ignore this aspect just to make themselves and the game feel "special".

....

I apologize if I came off rude, but you have to remember WHAT and WHO this forum is for... Console and console players... And who posts here and excersize some common sense and edit yourself before you post, or you (people in general) come off as a Troll.

doubleTAP5.56mm
04-24-2006, 03:20 PM
I apologize if I came off rude, but you have to remember WHAT and WHO this forum is for... Console and console players... And who posts here and excersize some common sense and edit yourself before you post, or you (people in general) come off as a Troll.

You didn't come across as rude, just trying too hard to sound intelligent.
I'm not saying R6 console players ruined R6, I'm saying the console versions are far from what they should be if they are to be called R6 at all. I have said in the past that R6-3 and BA were not THAT bad, considering console limitations.
As for real R6 not being a sim, yes it's not an all-out simulator, but it is a sim, just as realistic sports games are considered sports sims and racing sims. So gear weight isn't simulated; wow.


The MP portion of the original R6 on PC was just as run-and-gun as most games....
I agree with you. One reason is that the series is a counter terror squad based tactical shooter, yet any MP games with guns end up being played exactly the same - like Quake - regardless of the games' design or concept. That's the reason I occasionally stress the need for solid co-op material when discussing future versions.


Yes, the original PC games are SLOW in comparison to real life...
So you think you should be blasting your way to the hostage site with grenade launchers and WP? You're wrong. The pc versions require stealth and preparation, not "slowness".
Look, you're a console fan and you've been somehow offended by something I said, so nothing I say now is going to make any sense to you. I'm the bad guy, right? I was really just trying to point out that "hardcore" R6 fans are just plain R6 fans, because the game's original gameplay and concept are hardcore themselves. As I said, the series was not for everyone, and there's nothing wrong with that!
Before you assume I "don't belong here" since I'm a pc R6 fan, I'm a consloe fan too (I don't care for mouse/keys control) and I played R6-3 and BA, as long as I could stand it, but I would very much like to see something closer to the actual R6 series in the next version (360). That's why I'm here.

BigCat75
04-24-2006, 09:22 PM
I see what DT is saying, I think. People use the word hardcore as if "hardcore" R6 fans are some kind of ancient freaks, when in reality we are simply fans of a hardcore game. It's not us that are hardcore, the game is hardcore (on pc).
And as far as the difference between the pc versions and the lesser, weaker console versions; that's something you either get or don't get. No amount of explaining or convincing will help you.

KungFu_CIA
04-25-2006, 07:40 AM
DoubleTap

You and your post didn't offend me.

However, I think people have to acknowledge there is a different audience on consoles than the PC -- right or wrong -- And so, there will always be separate concessions and conventions put into games designed for various platforms and their target audiences, I.E. the grenade launcher in R63 and BA.

I never use the GL in the game and if I do, it is strictly in SP (most serious online players and rooms ban the GL) as it would be in real life and that is with CS Gas because that is the closest to where and when it would be used at all.

All I was saying is I don't think you will ever see a 1:1 port of Raven Shield complete with planning and multiple teams for the console -- At least, last-gen like the PS2 and Xbox -- Simply because those systems could not run it (well) given their limited system specs.

Now, talking about the PS3 and 360... That is a different story, but again, the audience on a console is still a lot different than the PC and doesn't want that tactical an experience which requires multiple team management and planning. And if they do, there isn't a large enough VOCAL majority of them to make UBI and other publishers aware of it which brings us back to why console games are always relegated to the least common denominator (right or wrong) and in this case it just means a run-and-gun game with a less forgiving damage model than say Quake or UT.

I would love nothing more than a return to the days of console games being closer 1:1 ports of their PC counter-parts like the original Ghost Recon was.

This kind of tactical, multiple team style game has gone out the window in favor of more arcade shoot'em ups -- on all platforms -- But I specifically think it would work well on the console for R6 because they did it for Ghost Recon, so why not just adjust some of the things for a CQB environment and improve the AI?

Why can't we have something like Full Spectrum Warrior where the AI really can "think" for itself most of the time and instead of using waypoints, just use a real-time cursor system for rooms, door breaches, etc?

I am not against what you are saying, DoubleTap, but I just can't figure out why no one else in the console industry has figured it out since it would not be that hard in my humble, non-programmer opinion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

doubleTAP5.56mm
04-25-2006, 02:37 PM
Good post KF_CIA. I realize it would be illogical and probably impossible to make the console versions as complex as the pc versions, even on 360. I just think the departure from what is R6 has been too much. I play RS and RvS, and have played the console versions, and they are totally different games. It's like Ubi is looking everywhere for ideas except Rainbow PC. It seems almost like they do it out of spite, that's how obvious it appears.
Tom Clancy and his ideas are gone, they only use his name now (and send him a check I'm sure).
I'm excited about what the next R6 could be like on 360! Yet Ubi's track record of late keeps my expectations low. I don't mean bugs and glitches, I mean games that say Tom Clancy R6 on the box, but are nothing of the sort.

I'm sorry to have hijacked your thread Nomad. I don't think this was the discussion you had in mind.

CorvetteMike
04-26-2006, 11:33 AM
Great post Nomad, couldnt agree more.

Hatchetforce
04-26-2006, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by doubleTAP5.56mm:
Good post KF_CIA. I realize it would be illogical and probably impossible to make the console versions as complex as the pc versions, even on 360. I just think the departure from what is R6 has been too much. I play RS and RvS, and have played the console versions, and they are totally different games. It's like Ubi is looking everywhere for ideas except Rainbow PC. It seems almost like they do it out of spite, that's how obvious it appears.
Tom Clancy and his ideas are gone, they only use his name now (and send him a check I'm sure).
I'm excited about what the next R6 could be like on 360! Yet Ubi's track record of late keeps my expectations low. I don't mean bugs and glitches, I mean games that say Tom Clancy R6 on the box, but are nothing of the sort.

I'm sorry to have hijacked your thread Nomad. I don't think this was the discussion you had in mind.

There is no reason, I repeat NO REASON why a game cannot be created on next gen consoles that is ever bit or even more complex than what can be found on the PC. It is a copout to go down the dumb game path and blame it on the console. With the power of the 360, the infrastructure of LIVE and the ever increasing age of console owners there is NO EXCUSE for a shooter that belongs on a machine at the mall.

The mentality that fostered a slimmed down, brain dead shooter like console Lockdown is the type of cancer that must be eliminated if consoles are going to produce ground breaking titles. Games without complexity and depth are a flash in the pan and inevitably wind up as yesterday's news in the bargain bin. The titles that offer gamers a deep and far reaching experience become icons of the gaming world.

The age of console gamers is increasing at a geometric rate. The days of producing a brain dead button masher is over. It is one thing to make a mistake, but it is incredibly stupid not to learn from a mistake.

If Devs learn nothing else they should realize that gamers are fed up to the gills with lobotomized, moronic arcade shooters. There is a reason why SOCOM is the top PS2 shooter. It isn't hyper realistic, but it takes a realistic hardcore approach. Games like R6LD, BFMC, GR2, etc etc ad nauseum came and went and no one batted an eye.

On the Xbox 1, other than HALO 2 which makes no pretenses, look at the shooters that stayed near the top. Not the ones that spiked for a week after release, but those that stayed.

There is a lesson here. Make gamers happy and they'll make you profitable. Otherwise you wind up walking around the halls at the studio looking like a kicked dog. I saw John S. at RSE 2 weeks a go and he looked beat. PS2 LD is an albatross around his neck.

Darth_SS
04-26-2006, 05:35 PM
I don't think that, even with the next-gen, you can completely replicate the computer. Not for hardware limitations, but one serious technical flaw.

Controls.

The XBox 360 and PS3 both have two clicking thumbsticks and 12 buttons. The PC has well over 40. Furthermore, it's easier to mix and match control schemes for the PC, but not so much with a console as right off the bat most people want their controls to feel intuitive. Hence why Timesplitters sells so well, right out of the box it's just easy to adapt to.

Thumbsticks aren't as precise as a mouse, so you can't do all the planning and such. Not with as much accuracy as PC. And really, most console gamers would like realism, but they don't want to spend 20 minutes planning out an intricate 2-man attack plan. They'd rather spend closer to 5 minutes on load-out alone, and dive right in.

I think you should just have to ability to order individual pairs off, just like in SOCOM. It'd solve a lot.

Hatchetforce
04-26-2006, 08:24 PM
What is more realistic? Pushing a button or pulling a trigger? There are more than enough buttons to get the job done. When you see the button layout for GoW you will understand how they were able to cover everything and still have weapons jams if you do not change mags correctly. More developers are beginning to understand how contextual controls drastically increase the number of available buttons.

Also in the new OXM, besides the huge GoW preview, is this note quoted from TXB:


New screens of Rainbow Six: Vegas. This game looks amazing. There's a screen of your character rappelling down a building, looks awesome. Not much new in terms of info though. They said they've heard the cries of fans after Lockdown.

doubleTAP5.56mm
04-26-2006, 08:48 PM
They said they've heard the cries of fans after Lockdown.

There were cries before LD too, why the better hearing all of a sudden?

I would like to say that although critical hour seems to be a flop, I don't believe it was due to the addition of some of the features found on pc, but because it seems to have been a half-assed approach at incorporating these features. Right idea, just not well done. To me it has an arcadish feel, among other problems.
I say this because some people now say "see you can't please the hardcores". Yes you can, but obviously not with a half hearted product. I truely appreciate that they tried somewhat to get things right with crirical hour, just hope the next effort is a better one.

Force_HO
04-27-2006, 03:12 AM
Hardcore gamers have always created the communities that make games great. After we find a good PC title we tell other people its good, play it 24/7, host the servers, and start organizing which creates google indexed clan websites. Then we start producing mods creating more google indexed sites. Then affiliate marketeers start capitalizing on our popularity with game content ad sites creating even more google indexed sites. Then we create gaming associations to rank ourselves and host tourneys, you guessed it.. more google indexed sites. Then all the hardware sites start including frame rates for our games in their google indexed video card reviews. Then we use our favorite games as demos to illustrate the great graphics on the computers we sell. Then we put the latest voip company offering free software on the map so people can log onto our voice servers. That way they can advertise how great their software works with the game. Then we put the latest matchmaking service hosting our game, on the map. All of a sudden you got www.planetgame.com (http://www.planetgame.com). Do I need to go on? We create a lot of buzz. You'd think we could get more of our requested features in the PC version so we will create the buzz and arcade it down all they want for the console. This series has not been able to keep our resources and buzz committed to their titles. Are we just holding on to good memories and past days of gg's or will they publish something that we all want to play 24/7 again and rekindle some of those classic tactical clan rivalries?

Catpuss
04-27-2006, 06:08 AM
Looking at Lockdown it reminds me of a saying s one manager said to me when I thought a development idea was wrong "Sometimes you have to go to Scunthrope to reaslise its ****." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The point being that you know its wrong but until you experience it you don't realise the horrors of how badly they got Lockdown wrong. The hardcore said was was good about RS6 & BA and Lockdown prooved that elminiating those features ruins a game quickly.

Sadly from what it seems they did a repeat with Critical Hour, but thats just looks like a blind marketing "lets regugitate for a 20 quid special".

I wouldn't be supprised if the developers had just added 4 new 5 add on packs for BA over the last couple of years on Xbox Live they would have done pretty well.

The problem here is also the review web sites and magazines. They are obessed with the visual side of games as that is dead easy to review. Game mechanics take a bit of effort to review which is no good if you want to get that web page up date in before anyone else or have a 4 hr deadline to review a game.

Personally I think RS3 and BA looked better than Lockdown because they were less "busy" with their visuals, not throwing in loads for the sake of it. Airport 1 & Alcatraz (single player) on RS3 is still some of the best looking visuals in a game as they make the trade off between clarity, effects and speed of rendering. But sadly the sheep want the latest effects 20% higher polygon count and DOT3 bump mapping even if all they end up with is a dumbed down version of Pac Man.

As already mentioned Accesibility of a game is not about dumbing down a game for pretty visuals, its about clear and concise user interfaces that allow the depth of the game mechanics to show through instead of being overly obfuscated.

Halo2 & RS:BA on line game hosting are prime examples. BA was clear and simple to set up a hosted game (.50 cal Y/N bodge excepted) options were there and one person set up as host. Halo 2 was an f'ing mess. Too many menus, optimised host which wasn't always correct. The stupid party system is a joke. Team colours were too similar on some TVs so you had to work out if you were green or drab green team or some other percuilar shade. Behind it all in Halo 2 had a pretty OK system, just dressed up like a dog's dinner with excessive pretty visuals and menus. It wasn't accessible just dumbed down.

KungFu_CIA
04-27-2006, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by Hatchetforce:

There is no reason, I repeat NO REASON why a game cannot be created on next gen consoles that is ever bit or even more complex than what can be found on the PC. It is a copout to go down the dumb game path and blame it on the console. With the power of the 360, the infrastructure of LIVE and the ever increasing age of console owners there is NO EXCUSE for a shooter that belongs on a machine at the mall.

The mentality that fostered a slimmed down, brain dead shooter like console Lockdown is the type of cancer that must be eliminated if consoles are going to produce ground breaking titles. Games without complexity and depth are a flash in the pan and inevitably wind up as yesterday's news in the bargain bin. The titles that offer gamers a deep and far reaching experience become icons of the gaming world.

The age of console gamers is increasing at a geometric rate. The days of producing a brain dead button masher is over. It is one thing to make a mistake, but it is incredibly stupid not to learn from a mistake.

If Devs learn nothing else they should realize that gamers are fed up to the gills with lobotomized, moronic arcade shooters. There is a reason why SOCOM is the top PS2 shooter. It isn't hyper realistic, but it takes a realistic hardcore approach. Games like R6LD, BFMC, GR2, etc etc ad nauseum came and went and no one batted an eye.

On the Xbox 1, other than HALO 2 which makes no pretenses, look at the shooters that stayed near the top. Not the ones that spiked for a week after release, but those that stayed.

There is a lesson here. Make gamers happy and they'll make you profitable. Otherwise you wind up walking around the halls at the studio looking like a kicked dog. I saw John S. at RSE 2 weeks a go and he looked beat. PS2 LD is an albatross around his neck.

You're preaching to the choir here, man http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I am in my 30s and play console games (Xbox) and have actually seen MORE innovation on the console than in the PC the last few years in terms of just games overall, not to mention the FPS genre in particular.

You probably already know this, but for those who don't...

You know where this "cancer" and stereotype of consoles only appealing to "little kids" comes from?

Nintendo.

Because Nintendo is a family-friendly (kid-friendly) system with gaming icons like Mario, Donkey Kong, and Zelda which are ALWAYS going to out-sell "M" rated games regardless of who produces or publishes them.

Why?

Because families with little kids who game far outnumber older or single persons who game becaue of the fact families have kids. This is just statistical fact.

The problem arises when other publishers see these sales figures and automatically and erroneously assume the success of those games is (was) because of the simplified nature of games most younger kids play... When it is more than likely the size of the target audience (families) itself which is responsible for the revenue more than any other factor.

In other words, publisher A sees Nintendo sell 100 million copies of game X and thinks it must be because game X is so easy to play, aka because it is "dumbed down"... When in fact it isn't game X, but who game X is marketed to and the size of that target market (families) itself.

This is also exactly why there is such a bias and stereotype of consoles being soley for "kids" (people under 13) and not "serious" gamers which is usually the 13-25 year old (male) demographic.

However, what is happening now is what HatchetForce alludes to and that is eventually, those 13-25 year olds are going to become 30 and 40-year olds who's gaming needs and wants are going to mature and they are going want more complex games on the console like Raven Shield on the PC, complete with the pre-planning and multiple teams.

As a philosophical aside, what we are seeing from a sociological perspective is quite unique since this will be the first time in history where there is a generation who will always have known video gaming in one form or another, console, handheld and PC, and who will continue to game well into their adult lives and beyond compared to previous generations.

This presents and unprecedented opportunity for ANY game developer who can adapt to this new demographic and deliver games with complex (mature) gameplay, but that also have the ease-of-use consoles currently excel at with regard to the overall gaming experience.

It is this combination I predict will be the major competitive advantage in the games industry in the years to come.

Nomad_381
04-27-2006, 02:59 PM
This goes along with what you just said, KungFu. The videogames industry is reaching the point in its development where it can no longer expect to routinely create a game that is accepted by the whole of the market. It is becoming more and more segmented. There has for a little while now already been a fairly clear segmentation of the market by age group, from young kids to adolescents to adults (its more specific than that, but I wont get into it). Now, however, it is becoming segmented across other lines based on what people are wanting and willing to consume.

The videogame industry is maturing and will likely become much like the Movie/Television industry in the future. Studios create a vast array of movies in different genres. Each genre caters to a particular cross-section of the market with of course some carry-over (sometimes action lovers want to see a good thriller etc. Same type of thing in videogames). Almost every genre imaginable is covered by the studios these days because thats how developed both the industry and the market is. I expect one day videogames will be the same way.

It is funny that devlopers at this time are gunning so hard to make "mainstream" after "mainstream" game (I mean games that sell to almost everyone) as if it were a sure bet. Soon the tides will change. The sure bet will be to produce something of quality for a particular piece of the market. Look at movies and TV: The most risky endeavors are the projects that aim to draw in the entire market rather than a segment of it (though on the very rare occasion that it happens, it is a big payoff. ex. Titanic/Halo). The most rewarding endeavors with comparatively little risk are those that aim to please a core segment of the market and do it so goddammed well that the market as a whole simply cannot ignore it (Lord of the Rings/Gran Turismo).

Eventually the industry will pan out and everyone will get what they want, until then its going to be a bit of a chaos while developers continue to conglomerate and figure out what they need to do to service the market.

Jermtheory
05-03-2006, 04:11 PM
great stuff guys...i thought when i clicked the thread i was in for a fight.but everything i wanted to say has already been said on page 2 alone.