PDA

View Full Version : Appeal to Wider Audience Does NOT = Dumb Down



KungFu_CIA
03-12-2006, 04:03 PM
One of the guidelines Geiger has given the Council is to help find ways to attract new gamers to the R6 series as it must gain new players in order to be survive.

However...

This does not mean we have to "dumb down" the core gameplay which made the previous R6 games great... But it does mean we, as a Community, have to find ways to simplfy the whole R6 experience as a whole, SP and MP, to attract potential gamers who may have been put off from previous R6 games.

Let me break this down with specific examples:

Dumbing Down:

-Only one team in SP.
-No choice of team members.
-No pre-planning.
-No choice of armor.
-Linear Maps.
-Grenade-throwing guide circles.
-No sniper rifles in SP.

(Sound like a recent game we all know? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)


Simplify:

When wanting to play MP, there is one menu which has the following:

-Server List
-Server Filters (Ping; Gametype; Map; Anti-Cheat; Mod; Stats; etc.)
-Friend's List
-Favorite Server List
-In-Game Voice Communication Access
-R6 News Scroller (bottom of menu) which tells of a new patch, tournaments, etc.

(Sound like a good MP GUI from a game we all know, I.E. Raven Shield, with a few enhancements? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

......

The difference between the two examples, regardless if one is SP and the other MP, is the first example changes the actual gameplay to be more simplistic and thereby ruining what made R6 great.

The second example does nothing to the actual gameplay, but makes the overall (MP) gaming experience much easier and simple for gamers to use and enjoy.

This is the definition of "making R6 appeal to a wider audience" I am working under and hope the rest of you also think about it in these terms too.

Why?

Because you, the community at large, are the best source of how to simplify -- not dumb down -- The series to make it more user-friendly because this is the main issue which haunts not only the R6 games of the past, but PC-gaming in general if everyone is willing to take an honest look at why consoles outsell PCs in terms of ease-of-use and convenience only.

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

Yen Lo
03-12-2006, 05:09 PM
Well over the years we asked for alot of things to make the game better. What we got told is improving the graphics were what the Ubi brain trust came up with. We said, shoot in shooters, does realistic looking dirt make the game? Nope, the gameplay does.
Another way to look at, look at all the decisions you decided had to be implamented, and where the series is now(near death). Take out all your decions, and start over.
Something else you might do is steal the training from The Regiment, and add having the player learn to shoot while THEY are on the move, at moving and stationary targets.

Vert22110
03-12-2006, 05:16 PM
Err, those sound like added features, not gameplay mechanics.

Someone said it, I think it was SOD Sniper, that trying to appeal to a wider audience usually ends up appealing to NO ONE.

The ONLY games I can think of that appeal to a very wide audience are Counter-Strike (especially at release) and Battlefield 2. Both games have a mix of elements, but neither game elements are "Dumbed down".

Personally, I think Ubisoft should stop trying to make more money, appeal to the audience they already have (or whatever they have left after LD) and be done with it. There is no need to "widen the audience".

So, let me ask you this... WHY should we widen the target audience? I see nothing wrong with a tactical shoooter specific audience.

Thump248th
03-12-2006, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Vert22110:

So, let me ask you this... WHY should we widen the target audience? I see nothing wrong with a tactical shoooter specific audience.

Because they want a new BMW (substitue whatever material possession you wish) and jacking up Rainbow was their best concept. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

reggo
03-12-2006, 06:13 PM
KungFu_CIA, the MP UI example you provided fall under the discipline called "Software ergonomics" (or UI ergonomics). I'm sure you already know that and I understand you just tried to give us an example. BTW, ergonomics should always be applied, whatever the 'user' is hardcore, casual or beginner.

So, let say you are suggesting that:
1) Geiger (or UBI) is ready to stick with a 'realism oriented gameplay', that is, a classic R6 style gameplay,
2) Geiger (or UBI) wants to make everything possible to improve the ergonomics of the various UIs.

Then there wouldn't be any problem in sight.

Unfortunately, I think that Geiger (or UBI) would like R6 fans to come up with compromises on the gameplay instead. For example, accepting to have ONE team. IMHO, that sort of compromise is simply unacceptable.

There was a 'theoretical' solution frequently submitted in the past: configuration or customization. That is, being able to select and set up various options to scale the game between 'realism' and 'arcade'. For example, being able to set a linear cursor anywhere between 'one shot, one kill' and 'god mode'. Or between 'vector aiming system' and 'full auto-aim'.

The problem with that is: How could a developer come up with a 'working gameplay' for each and every way to customize the game? In my view, it would be extremely difficult, if not simply impossible. For the gameplay to work efficiently, one has no choice but to choose either one or the other style (realism or arcade) and design the game accordingly.

fires2006
03-12-2006, 07:03 PM
KungFu_CIA with all due respect, this game cannot be simplified. Its a unique game experience specific to the franchise which made it a success and won fans(customers) the world over. If UBI continues down this path then the series is well and truly doomed.

Its not a game that appeals to everyone. Lets face it is a tactical type game thats not everyones cup of tea and was never a mainstream game.


Ive been wondering why UBI bought the franchise in the first place and the answers obvious. It made piles of cash and was a winning formula.
Any game company that messes with the formula only alienates the loyal customers and itll die an agonising death. Fanbases are usually very unforgiving and R6 customers are no different from what I can see.

Making it simpler wont guarantee you an audience either and I think will be a mistake.

But certainly making it like the days of old will get you at least some fans back.

reggo
03-12-2006, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by fires2006:
KungFu_CIA with all due respect, this game cant be simplified. Its a unique game experience specific to the franchise which made it a success and won fans(customers) the world over. If UBI continues down this path then the series is well and truly doomed.


Truly doomed...

That's very interesting, because one of the issues John Carmack had with the rest of the team designing DOOM 3 was that they wanted to have many moves and features available to the player and many keys associated with it.

John Carmack insisted on making things SIMPLE and keeping the number of features and usable keys to a strict MINIMUM. In DOOM 3, no crouching, no prone position, no leaning, no ...

Why ?

Because the game is a FPS designed with the casual gamer in mind.

R6 is a tactical shooter. It does appeal to an entirely different audience. Here you can't simplify things without alienating the core gameplay and the players as well...

Yen Lo
03-12-2006, 08:08 PM
HEH and no flashlights in the 24th and half century either LOL <- jkin.

fires2006
03-12-2006, 08:15 PM
Well said reggo. UBI know what we want. Seems to me its like a continous war between what UBI wants and what the customers want. These threads are becoming tiresome and redundant very quickly.

Take a game like Hl2 ok its not a game that appeals to everyone (love it or hate it), but no-one can deny its a quality piece of work both technically and artistically even though it took years to create. Im not suggesting that UBI put that much time into a game but you cant deny respect to a game company that puts that kind of dollars and level of commitment to creating such a game.

This kind of game development shows they really cared about thier customers and loyal fans not just release mediocre title after title.... like the macdonalds of the gaming world.

Aj6627
03-12-2006, 08:36 PM
I don't like the idea of simplifying, and I hate the idea of dumbing it down.
I would love it to be a mix of R6/RS and RvS.
The original two(plus expansions and CO) had great all around gameplay.
RvS had a great interface system for online.
Ubi should give RSE free reign to create a game their way, which I'm sure would be more like R6 and RS.

rat0a
03-12-2006, 09:35 PM
This is my first post in years

I have them all
R6 RS UO COE RVS ATH GR DS IT SOAF ect
also I play consoles as you do Kung FU and have R6-3 GR GR2 GRSS (GRSS is a good console game)

But what I saw on the demo was awfull so i decided to pass on this one and Im happy I did why?

because as I said early GRSS is a good game for
a console and sadly R6LD is GRSS with a new paint job and I dont like to play that kind of games on my PC..... thats why I have a console in the first place and thats why GR2 PC was canceled because that game wont appeal GR tactical community

Ah and I play my console Clancy games most of the time online because the levels in SP are too linear for my taste

subzero1900
03-12-2006, 09:53 PM
Ok, Kung Fu, I have a Grand Idea,
A superb Idea (one who can help noobs,amatures,and hopefully elites)

An COmplete 110% fix for people who don't understand all the fundamentals of R6.
(thanks to Splinter Cell Chaos Theory)

What is the biggest problem with noobs? Tactics? Equipment? what equipment can be used to counteract (HBS,HBP,HBSJ)?Understanding the Hud? Movement? Aiming? Operating the Menu? Planning phase?Understanding the mini-map? Ect...?

well, Include Training Videos, Demonstrating and explaining what to do, how to do it, how to practice, how to understand it.

but wait, theres more.

after all that, Include a bunch or even one long training session where they can jump to what they don't know how to do, with AI counter parts to help train them, like in splinter cell.

This would be greatly helpfull for Appealing to a wider Audience withought dumbing it down, even make it manditory to run through the basics (movement) before they can go online.

KungFu_CIA
03-13-2006, 12:05 AM
First off, I just want to thank everyone for keeping this thread civil and respectful.

I know I shouldn't have to compliment you (all), but it's nice to see in the wake of LD that we can have serious, open-minded discussions with YOU... The Community (even if a limited segment of it)... And not have the thread de-evolve into a flame fest.

Kudos. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

......

Now, why I started this thread...

I think some of the issues brought up here are at the core of a lot of antagonism and negativity between not just UBI and the fans, but also between some of the posters and what they feel the Council's "true" purpose is (and even those on the Council). I am not pointing fingers, but rather just addressing this, openly, so we can hopefully move forward like we have been and can communicate in a more clear and conscise manner like this thread has been going so far.

RE: R6 Has Never Been Mainstream...

I completely agree.

If mainstream means selling as many copies of games like Counter-Strike and BF2 and other shooters, then NO. R6 has never been a mainstream title. It has been a best-selling series, but will never equal the sales of the games listed above as much as UBI wants it to be... At least not in the form the majority of the fans want it to be.

In addition, all of us who have been there since '98, with R6 and EW, and even those who joined in '03, with Raven Shield, and its expansions have a clear understanding of what a Rainbow Six title should be like in both the SP and MP:

-Planning
-Multiple Teams
-Non-Linear Maps
-Team Member Selection
Etc, etc.

-Good Dedicated Server package
-Direct IP connection
-Mod Support
-Support of good anti-cheating apps
-Support for 3rd Party VIOP
Etc, etc.

We've gone over these things a thousand times. But, here is a question I think may actually catch some of you off guard and that is...

Why WOULDN'T all of these previous features attract more people to begin with?

This may be a rhetorical question, but the reason I even ask is if it isn't past features which made the previous games unique and best-sellers, what else is there? What else can be done, to be blunt?

I'm asking all of you because I think this is part of a bigger issue here... Something I can't seem to nail down... And why I am throwing it open for debate and discussion.

Also, before we move on, let's address the elephant in the room -- Well, two elephants in the room as it were.

One. Yes, UBI wants to make more money. This isn't some big secret. We're all adults and we accept this as gamers and because this is how the world and big corporations like UBI function.

However, we also need to acknowledge it... And more importantly, THEY need to somehow acknowledge what the community wants as well... Even if not publically... Because there has to be a compromise between what the fans want and what UBI wants because these two things seem to be mutually exclusive, now, more than ever since the video game industry is so competitive and growing by the billions each year.

Two. R6 as a franchise and community MUST grow.

I know a lot of you don't want to hear this because this is interpreted as inexperienced, immature gamers coming from other mainstream games and thereby, forces UBI to "dumb down" R6 to accomodate them.

However, the truth is no game and no series can survive without new gamers/new blood. Period. This is just a fact of life and something we, as a community, are going to have to accept and this is why I decided to bring this whole issue out into the open and in a separate thread dedicated soley to issues like this one.

This leads me to...

RE: Helping New Players With R6...

The ideas presented by Yen Lo and Subzero is exactly the kind of feedback the Council is looking for because as I said, it is all of YOU who play the games -- as does the Council, obviously http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif -- But who may have a much different perspective and have insight on where you think some improvements could be made as in the examples above.

It is these kids of ideas which will hopefully ease the induction of new R6 players and Community members to the series and thereby, fullfill what UBI wants and also what we want as if UBI makes a good profit selling to more potential gamers then us long time fans get more games which is what most of us (you) want in the end, ultimately, correct?

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

doubleTAP5.56mm
03-13-2006, 02:12 AM
You could even say that ironically, one of the selling points of PC Rainbow was the very fact that it's a serious, hardcore game NOT FOR EVERYONE. How the hell did this series gradually get lumped in with all the regular shooters out there?! In my correct opinion comparing R6 to Halo is like comparing Falcon 4.0 to Crimson Skies.

KUF_Kazzuto
03-13-2006, 03:42 AM
well.. even though i think all of this posting is futile and even though i think bubi should really put up a poll with multiple choices for what we want from them gamewise, instead of wasting anybody time with endelss lists of wanted feature that goes allways ignored by them, allways, and also keeping in mind that rs should be brought back from run and gun arcade game marketed @ 12 years old players to the original tactical shooter idea that the game was(been saying this for almost 2 years)marketed @ a more mature fanbase (i play this franchise since the the fisrt release) that grew older in the mean time (I'm 41), the game could be marketed as follow:

"You played bf2, you played joint ops, and you did good....
do you really think you got skills? come and get some!!!"
Obviously they should back this up with a KICKASS game.

Woosy
03-13-2006, 05:00 AM
The thing that i don't understand is planning has always been an option in all rainbow six gams, you can just select a team click on the start point and fire up the game or do it lone wolf. I think to appeal they need to be on both PC and console as an option, there are people on there who like n depth games too.

What appeals to the mass audience is a solid storyline and over the series improved dynamics. If you play Splinter Cell Chaos Theory then go back to the original game you can see the improvements, SCCT appealed to the wider audience 1) it had alot of PR I would of missed it if I hadn't of seen the adverts 2) it was easier to play in some aspects compared to the first there are more moves like grab and knifing which are easier in SCCT but the gameplay remains fluent to the original.

If R6 wants to appeal to a wider audience they've already managed it, it's on console and pc and weas very popular till Lockdown. Some game you can't push it anymore then what it is, if you do, you don't dumb it down but you break the core gameplay, and that alienates.

I think the best thing would be to go back to the original gameplay, likewise how black arrow fans liked it give it better graphics and you appeal to the mass... reason being all the people who where alienated from previious games will come back so in theory you're appealing to a wider audience then what these games have now.

DreamMarine
03-13-2006, 05:45 AM
All this thread is telling me (again) is, that there is a fundamental difference between dumbing down R6 on the one side and appealing to a wider audience on the other side.

Not everybody seems to get that point! But most important will be, if UBI can and WANTS to get this VERY VERY VERY important point! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Relenquish
03-13-2006, 09:17 AM
Ok here comes my view oint.

I dont want this game to attract annoying idiots who tk and run about like headless chickens. What i want, like ubi is new blood. I am working on the assumption here that ubis going to uphold its part of the deal and make an awesome tactical shooter. If they do i believe this will work.

FPTS is a niche genre, what we want is more people who like this genre. AKA new blood. How can we achieve this? Well the simple answer is training. And I beleive thats the key. I think if people know how to play the game, not all, but the ones we like, will stick around and become followers of the series.

Back to the part that FPTS are a niche market. That means a lot of people will never of played them before. Which becomes a problem when they decide to give it a try. When you play a game from a new genre where do you start. Training, thats where I do anyway.

Now given that ubis advertised and produced a quality game which the reviewers are raving over, which they do for quality games, then the problem is keeping those who have the poteintal to play properly, and enjoy the game for what it is, interested. Given the game itself is good, it should hold the interest of those who know how to play, easily. But of course new blood doesnt know how to play. So I see the step of, new blood buying the game, to new blood knowing how to play it, the most likely time framw where new blood will think, [edit]IT I DONT KNOW HOW TO PLAY, SCREW THIS GAME!

The only game ever to hold my attention while training was, suprise suprise, The Regiment.

Now I am not saying to make the training like the regiment's. I am not saying that because I dont believe it will work. TRs a hardcore game aimed at those already fans of FPTS. The next RS training needs to be able to catter for people new to the FPTS genre. And the training needs to hold their interest while teaching them all that they need to know to be able to enjoy the game.

What a lot of games do in training is take you though the extreme basics at a really slow pace. This annoys the hell out of most people, making them very likely to thing [edit]IT, i'll go it with out the training. At that point you have most possibly lost the New Blood for ever. A poteintal customer for years to come, down the drain.

What RS needs to do is take the player from knowing nothing, to some real good tactical play, heres the important part, at a pace they decide.

Now that may seem a lot of work for the production team to do just for training. But when you look at it and think, trainings actually really important at involving the wider audience, it begins to seem worth it.

Think about it UBI, extensive training to cater for all.

DreamMarine
03-13-2006, 09:40 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Very good post!!!

No one made this so clear before. And I think that this really could be the key to attract new people and keep them interested in R6. Especially in SP and COOP.

And I am sure, that even everybody of us would enjoy a real good "tactical training" with grading or so.

BTW, maybe this would even help with the team AI since they train us, how it "should be done right", and what they will expect that we will do it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Crushda
03-13-2006, 10:11 AM
well i stated my opinion about

Appeal to Wider Audience
already on a diffrent place.
I fully believe in:
IF Ubisoft would have worked on all the Bugs of Raven Shield and would have implemented a good MP Support such as Web Admin Interface, Stand Alone Serversoftware, Anticheat Tool, Online League Gaming Support
The games would become hyper Seller with the Gamelayout (planingphase, several teams, switch between characters, customation of weapons etc) AND Gameplay of RvS (perfect gun handling, run&walk speed perfect, move while peeking etc). No need to change anything of the R6 Style.

just fix simple things such as netcode, nadebug and create a even better interface such as N4Admin for any furture release.

AMC_MadMax
03-13-2006, 10:40 AM
"Appeal to Wider Audience"

Does ubisoft really need help how to "appeal to a wider audience" ?? i really get scared when i read things
like this, its so easy, and a company making FPS games for some time now should know such simple things.

its just a matter of support. u got that ? i'll repeat that for u: SUPPORT, SUPPORT, SUPPORT !!!
u don't need to change the gameplay of Rainbow6, just take either RS or RvS, update the engine,
better grafics, thats it.
But what a game really needs, is support. U wanna know how a game gets really popular ?
support it. give your CUSTOMERS (maybe u forgot about that word) the feeling that u care about them
(and not just care about their money), give them a standalone dedicated server,
give them a Win and a Linux server version, give them patches with bugfixes when needed,
and tell them when u are working on an update. Thats what forums are for, just in case u forgot about that.
Do that and the people will love the game, even the non-hardcore RS fans.

Philisophical discussions how a game should evolve are nice, but they mean nothing if u lost your
reputation because u let your CUSTOMERS buy games without any support.
Give the modders a real SDK, let them do the evolution part of the game and concentrate
on your part: SUPPORT.

Why do u think people still play CS after all this years !?
think about it,

just my 2 cents

reggo
03-13-2006, 10:41 AM
Personally, I LOVE the idea of subzero1900!

Let me summarize it:

1) Invite a bunch of casual/beginner players to play RS/RvS for a mission or two and ask them what they think about it. What was difficult? What was boring? Why was it difficult/boring? The objective would be to UNDERSTAND why the casual player think some phase(s) is (are) difficult/boring.

2) VIDEOS! Training videos thoroughly showing the player how to use each and every phase of a mission (from the briefings and planning phase all along up to the action phase and the tactics involved)

3) A very deep training session where you can come back on any single aspect you had trouble with and practice it until you get it right.

Also, as some other people posted, make it clear to the 'casual' player that if he/she wants to do some simple search&destroy (terro hunt), alone (lone wolf) and without any planning phase and specific equipment selection, HE/SHE CAN! That is, if he/she wants to play a traditional and easy to play/understand shooter, HE/SHE CAN!

The beauty of R6 is that under it's 'apparent' complexity and it's true deepness, is hidden the most basic and traditional FPS. The game has always been 'customizable' from the beginning. You only have to make it still more clear to the casual player.

Geiger, what do you think about it?

More generally, we (the fans) can try to give ideas to the council, but would it be possible to get some feedback from UBI representatives?

TedSmith
03-13-2006, 11:11 AM
Training is certainly something that could be improved from the previous iterations of R6.

As Relenquish has stated, The Regiment's training was unique in many ways. It wasn't your typical shooting Range, followed by an obstacle course, followed by a 'this is how you secure hostages'... etc. It was very demanding and it taught some very important details about CQB from room clearing, to target identification, and then it put them all together under duress with flashbangs going off and sounds of gunfire to distract, etc.

What it didn't do was clearly explain where you'd gone wrong, or allow for a learning curve. It expected you to be perfect the first time and made no effort to explain the required grade, or allowances for how to work towards that. Basically, it just said "You did terrible, now do better!" It was great fun for me, but I'm the sort that just keeps trying until he gets it right. Most people when it comes to playing games, aren't like that and that's something that needs to be taken into account.

What I would suggest is a tiered training system where each section is run through several times. An example is with room clearing:

<span class="ev_code_red">Room Clearing I</span>
- One room, you enter, it has a red X on the right side inside the door and a blue X on the left side of the door. Your task (which has already been explained previously) is to choose one of those X's, move to it and sweep the entire room.

- You fail this exercise only two ways. First, by failing to properly sweep the room before calling "Clear". Second, you fail by crossing your wingman's line of fire. Once you enter the room and make your choice of left or right of the door, you DO NOT cross to the other side, or you've forced your wingman to lower his weapon for fear of shooting you. If you fail, the game MUST explain clearly why you failed.

- You run through it once in an exploratory mode with no time limit. Then you are put through it again with a timer (doesn't have to be as strict as The Regiment's for a passing grade).

<span class="ev_code_red">Room Clearing II (two rooms)</span>

- As in the first one, you and your wingman are expected to enter the first room and take up dominant positions on either side of the door (pushing the corners) and sweep the room before calling "Clear".

- The difference is that now instead of just the X's to mark dominant positions, there is a Blue line of tape and a Red Line of tape to illustrate suggested paths for you and your wingman. When you've swept the room, you move along your line until you reach the far side of the room, open the second door and repeat.

- In this session, failure is met by one more obstacle. You must properly sweep the room, you must call clear, you must not cross into your wingman's line of fire while sweeping and now you must follow the proper path through the room to avoid crossing his line of fire while moving as well. The line need not be followed precisely as it is merely a guide, but it should be clear that you are not to stray from the left side of the room to the right while in the process of clearing with a wingman.

- Again, once through with no timer, then once timed.

<span class="ev_code_red">Room Clearing III (No guide markers)</span>

- In the third section, there are now three rooms.

- All the previous rules apply, only now there are no markers in the room. You must judge for yourself from what you learned in the previous training sessions where you should go and what path you should follow.

- Again, once with no timer, once timed.


That of course is just a rough example of one portion of the training. The training itself in The Regiment became it's own mini-game of sorts, working to achieve a high grade on all of them (there were more training missions than actual missions in that game). Easy to understand and USEFUL training will go a long way to helping new players get a feel for what Rainbow is and help them better identify with the game as a whole.

A proper training section for a game should NOT just teach you the controls. That's fine for an arcade game, but in a game based on team tactics, the training MUST teach how to move tactically without interfering with your teammates. Teaching how to use a game is easy, teaching how to play it is difficult, but doable so long as they make it VERY clear to players what caused them to fail in their training and provides a detailed explanation of WHY it is an important thing to know.

The Regiment also claimed to have a Multiplayer team training where you could run through training with your teammates online to brush up on skills and learn to work together better. I was never able to find out how to start that, myself... but it was a GREAT idea. Not everyone will want to, of course, but if you and a friend play together on a regular basis, running through the training as wingmen and working to improve your score can really help improve how the two of you move and play together.

Other training for R6 could include:

- Target identification (Friendly, enemy, civillian)
- Moving targets (still identifying)
- double-tapping/accuracy
- Stealth
- Hostage/bomb/objective handling
- Breaching equipment use
- Proper grenade use (all types)
- Team coordination (use of Go-codes for multiple team breaches)
- Proper movement and cover techniques in open areas

Another thought is mission planning training. In Rogue Spear, we had 'observe mode' where we could watch the mission unfold as we planned it and see how it worked. Having a training exercise for this this might be a good idea as well to get new gamers more comfortable with the mission planning.

The first training mission for it could be utilizing two teams, the second with three teams and the third with four. In each case, you'd be in observe mode so you can see the plan unfold and perhaps understand why it didn't work rather than be distracted by participating in the action sequence yourself.

The game would also need to explain some details... "Too much noise made and time taken before securing the hostages ends up getting them killed, try equipping your team with suppressors, or speeding up their entry to minimize hostage casualties." You'd be scored based upon time taken and injuries/casualties of teammates and of hostages.

KungFu_CIA
03-13-2006, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Woosy:

What appeals to the mass audience is a solid storyline and over the series improved dynamics.

I agree and disagree.

I think a strong storyline is important in certain kinds of games and genres, but no so much in R6 because it really is the gameplay which made the original series unique.

In other words, if you were to not have any over-arcing storyline which tied all the missions together... Would it really matter if the gameplay was good? SWAT 4 does this and does it well.

However, I am not completely discounting how a good storyline can help immerse and sell the overall game experience more than not having one either. But, I feel UBI is trying too hard to focus on this "trend" -- Video games are now designed more as "interactive movies" than games -- And has forgotten, or is foregoing GOOD GAMEPLY in favor of this trend. And it's not just UBI if we are going to be fair. All mainstream companies like EA, Valve and others are focusing more on trying to make interactive movies than games with challenging and lasting gameplay... Even in the MP portions of games in a lot of respects.



If R6 wants to appeal to a wider audience they've already managed it, it's on console and pc and weas very popular till Lockdown. Some game you can't push it anymore then what it is, if you do, you don't dumb it down but you break the core gameplay, and that alienates.

I completely agree with this statement.

It has been reinforced time and time again with other series like Civilization and The Sims, for example.

While those games are RTS... They retain the basic gameplay the original games had -- Because this formula was a hit -- With new features which advance the series and move it forward. In other words, don't try and fix what isn't broken, but add new things which may, or may not work, but at least don't mess up the original, core gameplay which made the series hits in the first place.

What I think may be part of the problem is UBI is trying to treat its audience -- as in all platforms and all genres -- As one homogenous entity when in fact there are sub-segments within this audience which not only include platform differences, but also things like tactical shooters and arcade shooters which some of you brought up before.

I also think UBI keeps performing the "cardinal" sin of game design and that is make too many gross assumptions of not only who the target audience is, but what they think the audience wants and can comprehend/handle as well.

In other words, I think they are too focused on the casual gamer and not gamers in general.

In my view, the difference between a casual gamer and a gamer is a casual gamer is someone who doesn't even play that many games on the PC or console and who only plays a game like R6 because they see the picture of a CT guy in a mask and helmet with an MP5 on the box and thinks, "Hey. This looks cool. I'll give it a shot" compared to someone who plays all kinds of games, on various platforms and who makes it a point to keep up with what is going on in the games industry because they are generally interested in it more than the casual gamer.

I think UBI needs to start making "games for gamers" again and not games for casual gamers.

Also, before people claim I am being "elitist", I don't consider someone who likes all kinds of games and plays them on a regular basis "elitist" as this just means I and persons like me are a fan of this kind of activity just as some who is a die-hard sports fan, or motorcycle and automobile enthusiast. People like us are NOT casually interested in our hobby/recreation and we shouldn't be lumped in with those who are, and I think this is one of the major problems UBI may need to address sooner than later if R6 is to survive in a way the non-casual gamer wants it to.

However, I think with Lockdown's universal failure -- It is unconfirmed, but it pretty much bombed on both console and PC if feedback across the internet is any real indicator of sales -- UBI has hopefully learned the above lesson of don't try and fix what isn't broken because ultimately, as you and others said, it means less profit in the long run because people will not buy games they don't like. It sounds almost too simple to be real, but sometimes I think it takes a financial hit the size of Lockdown to really get the higher-ups to actually realize they made a mistake and go back to what made them money before. They may never publically admit their failure, but if the outcome is what we want as gamers and potential consumers/customers then the lesson will be well learned, in my humble opinion.

......

RE: Training...

I think this is the universal theme a lot of you are citing which I am going to try and emphasize on the Council Forums by linking this and two other threads which deal with how R6 can try and initiate new players and thereby, keep the series going.

Also, I agree completely with this line of thought and support it openly.

One of the things which shocked me about Lockdown was the fact there was NO training sessions whatsoever which taught the player how to use the AI Team to clear rooms and other functions.

The only "official" training was the firing range which is just that: A firing range where you could try out all the weapons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

That isn't "training" any way you slice it.

(Not that LD needed any real training, but the point is if the next game returns to what R6 has always been it is going to NEED extensive training because R6 is a complex game to someone who has never played this kind of game before).

Also, training brings up something I mentioned on another thread and that is most video game players use video game tactics and not real world CQB/Anti-Terrorism/Military tactics because most video game players aren't trained SF Operators or even Law Enforcement officials.

Like TedSmith said, if you want people to play R6 in a realistic manner then you have to teach them what "realistic" in this series of game is.

Vert22110
03-13-2006, 03:32 PM
Again, I really don't think simplifying the game is the right term to use. You CANNOT simplify Rainbow Six. You CAN make it more accessible, however...

Features like Friends, Ded Server support, consistent patching, reliable netcode, modding, an SDK and customization... these are all NECESSITIES in today's online gaming world. Companies like Epic and VALVe (with UT and HL) spearheaded these features, and it shames me to see games like Lockdown totally ignore the examples set by their SUPERIORS. Players expect to see these features. The game is automatically inferior when the player sees that the game is lacking these essentials.

Again, these features are NECESSARY to a stable, well SELLING multiplayer game.



As for game mechanics...

Training is essential to any realistic/tactics-based game. You can't tell someone who has never picked up a baseball in their life to just throw a curveball on the spot. It won't happen. In depth training (in-game, videos, guides) can ensure new players' attention. Again... NECESSITY.

Ease of control and fluidness. I think LD's biggest failure was with the fluidness. The maps need to be open, but the movement needs to dictate the non-linear style. In LD, you sprint too fast in a level that is too small. Yet again, this is something Ravenshield did exceptionally well. RvS never felt klunky or wrong, the map sizes were adequete and it just FELT right.

What people DONT want to play (whether they are R6 vets or HL2 fans) is Lockdown. There is nothing in Lockdown that makes it a fun game, and even if it as at first, it looses its fun after a short period.

One of the great things about previous RB6 games was the learning curve and the challenge. R65 needs to play like a chess game. Easy to learn, hard to master. Thats what makes CS1.6 such a fantastic shooter... no one plays that game for the graphics, they still play it because it is difficult to master, but easy to learn.

So, I believe that if you focus on a few essentials, like training and fluidness and learning curve, you can easily improve the accessability of RB6 WITHOUT loosing the tactical/realistic elements.

Mystafyi
03-13-2006, 05:56 PM
I think I have an Answer, A way to appeal to both Old School R6 fans, and to a new audience that doesnt turn both off.

I think we can all agree that Multiplayer the old school way is and should not change, MP is MP. Adding some new things like rankings, VOIP, etc wouldnt kill us really.

My main point will lie with the planning phase, The planning is obtrusive(in all honesty back when you first saw it you prob were like me, what the hell does what?) this is what we want to avoid for a new player....BUT.... This obtrusivie and in depth planning is what made the game fun for alot of us, right?

So Here it is, Black and White, right in front of our eyes.

COMMANDER MODE VS OPERATIVE MODE SP.

Two different experiances using the same exact models and tools, No need to make an entirely different part of the engine.

Commander Mode : the more advanced model we are all used to, including planning, player switching on the fly, go codes, hold codes the whole shabang, the exact model as R6 # 1.

Operative Mode : You are no longer in control of the R6 team, yet you are a member. SIX or Ding hands down the plan which the player can look at or not(the plan would be the most likly plan determined to succeed if the player does his part, (always in the most crucial firing line).
The player plays the part of one of the operatives assigned to the OP, if he dies, he will be presented with the option to switch to a new character and continue the mission or restart the mission.
The Ai would run the show, the Leader would be telling the player where to set up on a door, what they are gonna do, automatically
(Of Course the pre mission plans would be already set, and maybe 3 different plans would rotate, random). Of course the Leader would wait for you to get into positon marked on your map, which should be explained in a training session at the beginning of the game, or identified on the fly as BF2 does its rolling tutorials.
Thing is this is Rainbow Six, Theres no Hero, they all are heros, they all have names and familes at home. This gives the player the chance to learn the majority of the systems while being highly entertained by fast moving counter terrorist action and Not being Bogged down by the system that we preffer.


I see this system being very easy to control costs of development(not doing things twice), appealing to both audiences, and also giving new players a chance and old players the experaince they deserve. Also Multiple Fire teams will work in the Operative mode, making the player Feel part of the larger more crucial, tense, situation.

Smaller Maps, From the size of Killhouse, to the max size of Island Estate. Smaller maps, more of them. Tie the story into cinematics, and Tie ding in the office and feild ops into it, in between missions, loading and deploying on Helos are a great idea, but Im sure everone doesnt want to have a 3 hour continuous mission.

Anywho thats my idea, let me know what you think about it.

reggo
03-13-2006, 07:26 PM
Very interesting idea Mystafyi!
The OPERATIVE MODE would need a really good AI though (better than the past games)...

The only thing I don't agree with is:


Originally posted by Mystafyi:
Smaller Maps, From the size of Killhouse, to the max size of Island Estate. Smaller maps, more of them.


I'm instead more in favour of variety. Variety in locations, variety in the types of environments, variety in the textures, and last but not least, variety in sizes (small, medium and large maps).

Mystafyi
03-13-2006, 08:05 PM
Well If you recall Reggo, Island Estate was a rather large map. I wasnt really reffering to size as in make them all as small as killhouse, I was more concerned with making a funtional space, a building(or watever) that is highly unlinear. Cleaver level design, compacted, designed as if an architect had made it, and not a long dragged out linear hallway. A location not a level.

subzero1900
03-13-2006, 08:06 PM
I like the Commander/Operative Idea Mystafyi

But like Reggo, I have to extremely disagree with the hole "Smaller maps" idea (call me claustrophobic<-the correct spelling)

edit:
but we need an equal portions of
Tiny (graveyard,training maze)
<LI>no need for scopes at all
<LI>2-4 man is okay

Small (killhouse,Killhouse double)
<LI>no scopes needed
<LI>4-6 players for a good match and not overkill

Medium (City street large)
<LI>rifles with scopes suffice
<LI>6-12-16 players great gaming
<LI>usually have at least one open area

Large (747,Diesel plant,Chatlet Fall,Hotel&bus)<LI>Sniper rifles apply
<LI>usually 1-2 big open areas with some cover
<LI>usually a route with cover where you can get by withought a sniper rifle

Mystafyi
03-13-2006, 08:09 PM
I wasnt really reffering to size as in make them all as small as killhouse, I was more concerned with making a funtional space, a building(or watever) that is highly unlinear. Cleaver level design, compacted, designed as if an architect had made it, and not a long dragged out linear hallway. A location not a leve
u posted same time as I did :P

subzero1900
03-13-2006, 08:16 PM
yeah, sorry about that, but compact isnt always the right type of building, like the maps that I listed diesel plant the interiors of the buildings were practically empty. They were still fuctional and they served a purpose. They were basically a route to those who didn't feel like taking up a bulky sniper rifle and provided a "quick Route" not "choke points"

Brettzies
03-13-2006, 08:36 PM
I think you have some good ideas there Mystafyi. Not sure how hard that would be for them do, but I like it.

In terms of making the game appeal to a wider audience. That really is a tough problem and a problem which plagues all entertainment The main problem is that you no longer make the game or film you want to make, but are now limiting the media based on what you "think" a large group of people will want. That's the hardest demigraphic to satisfy, the "everyone" demigraphic. Most things that are succesful in that demigraphic are because they are just plain good, not because they set out to "please" everyone. It's okay to have the thought, "will people like this" when making something for...people, but really it's about having a vision of what you want, not what pleases others. However, I do understand that they are in the business of selling games and that there are ways to appeal to a large audience.

Without comprimising their "vision," if they even have one above, "let's make another sequel," I think the basic things they need to address are the aspects which they think didn't appeal to a wide audience. Easier said then done of course.

Going back to pre RvS, this is what I think are hard selling points for them:
.1 shot 1 kill
.multiple teams, multiple operatives, no real "player character"
.planning and its interface
.graphics and no weapon in fpview
.having to pick more then just your "gun," and for the whole team
.controlling the team(s) and weapons
.overall interface and presentation
.no player rewards or upgrades
.the actual "action phase" experience and gameplay

Some of those things can be more "accessible" some cannot. If you look at some of the console version, they have addressed many of these, but at what price? The easiest one is graphics. The hardest is bringing the player character into the game and still maintain the "team" feel and operation.

I'm not going to sit here and give them a blueprint for designing the game, but that's really problem. They need to take that list, and design a game that incorporates them, but also makes them easy to use or switch to automated form for those who don't like it. For example, the planning should be fun and easy to use, an actual game within a game so that people will want to actually do it. It could be micro or macro, but there should be something, and it should not be clunky. And, like everyone has said, pre-made plans should be available.

Training:
I'm definetly in favor of training as "part of the game," not just before you go on your first op to learn the controls. I'm talking about training that continues through out the campaign, is always available, effects your team and stats, and even a part of the game.

I'm not in favor of videos because they are non-interactive. My personal view is that training should always be interactive and part of the game. From simple to complex, some should walk you through stuff, other are you practicing.


Basically they need to decide what they want to put in the game in terms of R6(the tactical team based FPS) and try to make that "accessible." From planning to gameplay to design, it's all there.

Lastly, and equally important, there are three different ways people play this game: single player, multiplayer, and coop. What carries from one to the next and what doesn't? Some people care about all three, some only one.

DreamMarine
03-14-2006, 01:54 AM
Oh guys, there happened very much in this thread since my last online time... and I must say: I am really hooked! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

@TedSmith (Training):
Your post is really great. I wished all the time that there were a better training part in R6. But since I read your post, I am shaking in expectance that UBI will do it just the way you described it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Give it a score, where players can measure how well they did. And they will try and try and try until they are experts themself.

There is more about training than just familiarizing newbies with the game. It's fun by itself. It's training for everybody. It's very immersive. It transports the feeling of beeing a real operator. Plz, plz, PLZ... UBI think about that one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif


@Mystafyi (Your concept):
That's a great idea, too! And i believe that it would work PERFECTLY together with the training idea!!!


These ideas go exactly the other direction than "dumbing down"... they will elevate all R6 players (also the new ones)... and everybody will have a great time learning it and feeling LIKE A REAL ELITE OPERATIVE.

<span class="ev_code_RED">Isn't exactly THIS what every R6 player (expert like newbie) wants!?</span>


Together with the point, that the MP should get better supported, bug-free, anti-cheating and equipped with a better admin user-interface for the MP gameplay experience, exactly THESE are basically ALL improvements to RvS which are needed for a real great R6 game! (Not to forget the state of the art graphics)


Dudes! Imagine a game like that! (If you just could see the twinkle in my eyes now...) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


DreamMarine

TedSmith
03-14-2006, 09:47 AM
<span class="ev_code_red">.1 shot 1 kill</span>

- Frankly, 1 shot 1 kill is outdated and unrealistic. Damage zones and armor modelling in games have taken drastic strides in the last few years. It's about time Rainbow caught up. There should certainly be kill zones where one shot will drop you, but one hit to the torso to an armored target is not going to do it unless it's in a kill zone.

<span class="ev_code_red">.multiple teams, multiple operatives, no real "player character"</span>

- This problem is very difficult to deal with, without losing the soul switching option. Then again, soul switching may be part of the issue as well. It's got to be a difficult thing for new players to understand that when they died, the game isn't over. After all, that's the video game standard.

<span class="ev_code_red">.planning and its interface</span>

- Two solutions that work together. First, planning training is desperately needed. Thinking back, the only way I learned how to use the planning in Rogue Spear was trial and error and that is NOT the way to go about designing any part of a game.

The second solution is dual campaigns as someone else mentioned. When you start your campaign out, have the choice of a commander campaign or an operative campaign. Or even simply have a "User-controlled mission planning" checkbox. That way, the people who just want to jump in and shoot things up can just start their campaign and get moving without fussing with planning or team selection. Have the game choose the appropriate weapons for their teammates and leave the choice of the player's up to them.

Technically, I suppose the commander campaign could include soul switching since it wouldn't interfere with those who just wanted the simplified jump in and play style gameplay.

<span class="ev_code_red">.graphics and no weapon in fpview</span>

Graphics aren't an issue. They've always been matched with the current gen games. Weapon view should be handled as it was in Raven-Shield, as an option that defaults to on. If people want to play without it, they can turn it off for themselves.

<span class="ev_code_red">.having to pick more then just your "gun," and for the whole team</span>

This I don't see as much of a problem. You -don't- have to pick more than just your gun. The game already defaults certain equipment to you, whether or not you change it is up to you. Same for the other team members. They have default kits chosen according to the default plan. You don't have to change anything on them unless you want to.

They just need to make it clear that kit selection is an option.

<span class="ev_code_red">.controlling the team(s) and weapons</span>

This one isn't as difficult as you might think. Controlling multiple teams shouldn't be much of a concern. The OTHER teams should proceed along with their set routes until they reach a hold point. They should stay there until the player's team is in the right place for them to continue, then the go-code should be given automatically in operative mode. In commander mode, it should be left up to the player when to give the code.

Now that may sound like scripting, but frankly, what -are- go-codes and planning but setting up your own scripts for the friendly AI to follow? The key is in operative mode giving the feeling that someone else is in charge and in commander mode giving the feeling that YOU are in charge.

<span class="ev_code_red">.no player rewards or upgrades</span>

No upgrades, certainly but I see no reason to have no awards at all. Let the player earn medals for doing well in missions. Have them assign different medals according to what country awarded them.

Just make sure it's NOT just the player that earns them. If Pak gets wounded during a mission, he deserves his purple heart too.

<span class="ev_code_red">.the actual "action phase" experience and gameplay</span>

I would argue that this is already the most simplified section of the game. Rainbow has never been terribly confusing in that respect. Once you're rolling, you go and you shoot the guys that don't look like you. The hostages always stand out as being hostages so you don't shoot them.

The only thing that makes it more complicated is when you're running with your own plan and using go-codes. But if as suggested earlier, we use the "operative mode vs commander mode" concept, the operative would never be one to give the go-codes, thus there's nothing to worry about with that.



I'm not in favor of videos because they are non-interactive. My personal view is that training should always be interactive and part of the game. From simple to complex, some should walk you through stuff, other are you practicing.

Personally, I'd say you should have both. Videos before each training mission to show what it's REALLY done like in real life, then you go through and learn to do the same thing in your own training mission. That would go a long way to help players feel like they're really part of the action as well. Give them that "Wow... I'm doing exactly what they are!" feeling.

---

One of the big things that struck me today was remembering a blog on 1up I read from Epic's CliffyB from some time ago. The guy is brilliant, by the way, you guys should check out some of what he talks about sometime.

Anyways, in this particular blog, he was attempting to single out what it is that seperates the insanely popular games from those that are not so popular, when both are roughly of equivalent quality.

Take Halo for example. Halo is NOT an uber-fantastic game. It's very linear, it's weapons are fairly standard sci-fi fare, the plot is standard "save the world" fare, the enemies are generically malevolent and the levels are often repetitive. That said, it's a fun experience, SP and MP. But the question is, what makes it so popular?

What Cliffy came up with was something he called Clarity of Experience (CoE). The biggest, baddest most popular games always do one thing very well. They make it abundantly clear WHAT the gamer is supposed to do.

Playing through Halo, I can't say I ever had one moment where I stopped and wondered what I was supposed to be doing, or what was next, or where that last enemy I needed to kill was to complete the mission.

Granted, that's much harder to do with non-linear maps and without scripting, but the concept is sound. That's the HUGE problem with planning that I'd be willing to bet UBI couldn't get their heads around. In Rogue Spear, the first time the planning screen came up I went... "What the hell am I supposed to do?" That sentiment is what kills sales on games.

It's also the problem with soul switching. People think when they die, the game is over and they have to reload or start again. How do we make it clear to them that they can switch players and continue without jarring them out of the experience?

Personally, I'm not all that married to the idea of soul switching. SWAT 4 doesn't have it, The Regiment doesn't have it, and I enjoy those games just as much as Rainbow SP. I always felt that it was more of a crutch for bad friendly AI.

I'd be just as happy seeing unique character creation for the player character with no soul switching and a better way to control the rest of my teams, while letting the AI worry about the specifics. I'd like to see the AI attempt to complete the mission without me if I die or am incapacitated. I don't need to watch, but the computer can generate the end scenario easily enough.

Then if I'm incapacitated, I'm back for the next mission and if I died I have to create a new character and all the medals and awards Joe-bob 1 earned are now put up in a 'memorial' section. That way I can see who my best operatives were, how many missions they ran, accuracy, kills, injuries, medals, etc.

While it's important to tie the player into the game, in a game like Rainbow Six we want to stress that this is a TEAM effort. The mission doesn't stop just because Joe-bob 1 is dead. It should just be less likely for the team to complete the mission without you (so you can't just commit suicide at the beginning and let your team win for you), but they should be capable of it especially if you've gotten to the end of the mission and are wounded on the last enemy.

Allowing the team to complete the mission without you, following the pre-set plan would alleviate some of the frustration caused when you die late in missions, and losing the progress of your custom player character should be deterrent enough to keep people from just tossing away their lives.

It's all about getting the player involved in the game and making sure they ALWAYS know where they stand and what they're supposed to do.

Relenquish
03-14-2006, 12:11 PM
Interesting points.

Clarity of Experience in previous games has almost certainly been an issue.

This is what I never understood. Why spend so long creating a feature, then 50% or more of the people who own the game never understand how to use it properly. Its truly is a waste of time. This is why training is so important for games in this genre. Dispite this no game has truly put the required effort into creating adequete training. (TRs probably the closest so far). Whats important is CoE should not mean dumbing down the game.

On the topic of soul switching, fo RVS I believe is was correct to have it in the game. The AI was not reliable so the only advantage of creating teams was if you could lead them yourself. In games like TR and S4 the AI can hold its own in the majority of cases which takes a huge amount of fustration out of the game, and allows so amny more possibilities. I would hope that the next R6 will also have AI which can hold their own in combat, this would vastly improve SP allowing it to become a game of real teamwork, not only online, but for the soloist as well.]

With improved AI soul switching may not be needed for team work, but I still think its an asspect of the game I would really miss. I loved playing as a sniper, then switching to assault man, then to demo man. It was great fun. I enjoy TR and Swat 4, but TR and Swat 4 are really a single element game. RS is not, and when there are multiple elements I want to be able to play in any of them. Its a case where you cant have your own character and be switching around all the others in the same game.

Personally I dont need my own character named after me, i would prefer being able to switch. If a character dies, I would like to be able to finish the map as another character. You know just to make sure the operative didnt die in vain. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DayGlow
03-14-2006, 12:16 PM
Never been a soul switching fan, but I'm open to it for the people that enjoy it. Personally I only ever switched teammates in GR to move them into a better position, or in RvS to clear a room, ie open door and toss FB with one guy, quickly switch to the next guy to clear enter the room. Sort of a poor mans room entry since the AI wouldn't do it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Other than that, I don't jump around. Personally it ruins the visimitude(sp) of the game for me.

Le Tigre
03-14-2006, 12:47 PM
The nice thing about character switching is its always been an option, and with the new team command improvements, it could be more of an option the ever.

Brettzies
03-14-2006, 12:48 PM
Tedsmith, I hear ya. That was just my list of things I know detered people from playing R6 and RS PRIOR to RvS. Obviously things like graphics are easily addressed, but many people did not want to play a game where they couldn't see their "gun." That was part of what makes in "appeal to a wider audience." But, most people see RS as the hay-day of R6 series, so I tried to list things specific to that game that would NOT APPEAL to a wide audience. The trick is, what can they keep for the essence of R6, and what can they change?

I'll try to clarify some just for the sake of it.

.1 shot 1 kill
This is more just the "theory" of realistic ballistics and no health "replenisher." I'm not saying every shot kills. I just thought this was the way to refer to it. Maybe the term is outdated, but no one wants to have to empty 3 mags into an armored soldier just to widdle his health down.

.the actual "action phase" experience and gameplay
Compared to games of the time, like Quake2 based games, it was quick when you got down to it. 5 to 10 minutes and a completely different experience from even CS or today's HL2. Sure you did it over and over, but the same thing. Whereas in a game like Quake2, you're taking 30 minutes to run through a level that's different at almost every turn. Just look at LD, it's a map crawl compared to taking down a building from multiple entry points or something.

.the team vs player points
At the time, maybe it's changed, people don't want to deal with teams. They just want to run around and do their thing. That's changed a bit. I'm not crazy about the "soul" switching thing, but sometimes it's essential. Teams are becoming more popoular in games, but it's still the player and then the team does whatever with a few commands available. But, R6 games are all about having some kind of team.

Anyway, you addressed the points pretty well. I wasn't saying they couldn't be, just that those are the thing that were hard for casual gamers to get around.

I think the game could be amazing if they want it to be. I think they should try to keep all of the things that made RS great and try to build upon them, make them easier to use, and "fun." Easier said then done.

reggo
03-14-2006, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by DayGlow:
Never been a soul switching fan, but I'm open to it for the people that enjoy it.


Like Le Tigre said, the beauty of the 'soul switching' feature is that you have the choice of using it or not.

Everybody wins! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TedSmith
03-14-2006, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by reggo:
Like Le Tigre said, the beauty of the 'soul switching' feature is that you have the choice of using it or not.

Everybody wins! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Except that you really don't... The game doesn't ask you if you want to start again, or switch to another character. Your team just stops moving and waits for you to do something.

If it DID give you the option to switch or start the mission over and made it clear to you that you had the option instead of requiring me to go through the menus to abort the mission, then it might work better. That is not the way it works in Rogue Spear or in Raven-Shield though, last I checked.

reggo
03-14-2006, 03:39 PM
That's where the training comes to the rescue. A good training MUST have made clear to the player that he/she can switches character ANYTIME, especially, whether he/she is dead or alive.

The idea of teammates being able to complete the mission by themselves (and the player coming back the next level in a new soul) is interesting though...

Relenquish
03-14-2006, 03:47 PM
The main arguements for and against soul switching for me seem to centre around 2 mind views.

The first is, I am here to control the whole Rainbow Team. In this case the death of 1, like in real life does not mean the death of the team.

The second is, This guys my primary character, ill switch to the others when the ai wont do, but [name] is who i am playing as.

Its a choice of preferance. If, like me you play with the first mind views then soul swithcing seems pretty acceptable. You switch between teams moving them like pawns in a chess game.

If the second you play like in swat 4. If you die thats your life done. Thats game over.

Neither are wrong views. In terms of RVS and RS it encouraged the 1st. In LD it encouraged the second.

These view points are really also related to the commander and operative options some1 brought up earlier. Commander, your incontrol of the team. You give the orders etc. Operative, your part of the team.

Now I prosume with this CoE thing as long as you clearly explain the choices its ok to allow both. But again it could be sending mixed vibes, commanding a team and being an operative in a team are two very different ways of playing a game. And a game designed for 1 might not match the other. Should ubi pick 1 and stick with it or try and allow both?

Best Regards

Brettzies
03-14-2006, 04:35 PM
Soul Switching and Player Character:

I think it should have both. You create a custom operative who you can customize the look of, nationality, earn medals, etc(see my RSDAC post) but you could switch to any of the other team members like previous games. If your custom operator dies during the mission you can choose not to advance once the mission is done, or like someone mentioned, he goes in the hall of fame and you can create a new one.

Most of the time I tried to get through with no casualties, but even in a botched mission, I'd play the whole thing out because it was fun. Sometimes people wouldn't die, just be incapacitated. They never seemed to come back though if you advanced, even after 2-3 missions, unliked the wounded ones.

Malleus.
03-14-2006, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Brettzies:
Soul Switching and Player Character:
...
Most of the time I tried to get through with no casualties, but even in a botched mission, I'd play the whole thing out because it was fun. Sometimes people wouldn't die, just be incapacitated. They never seemed to come back though if you advanced, even after 2-3 missions, unliked the wounded ones.

Very good idea with the custom character. As for the "incapacitated" status, those soldiers recover after a while (six weeks, mostly, at least in R6, I don't remember RS), but if a number of missions take place within a few days or weeks, those operatives will be unavailable for those missions...

TexasRanger_562
03-14-2006, 06:55 PM
There is nothing wrong with "soul switching", it has been around since Rogue Spears.

Mystafyi
03-14-2006, 08:15 PM
See I dont know why Soul Switching was removed anyway in favour of the save the game or start again method. The so called "Casual" audience is made up of people without the time needed to dedicate to playing a long session of gaming. These people wanna sit down, throw on the game, and have a really fun 15- 20 min session. Now what takes more time, being able to complete a mission in 15-20 mins because if you die you can continue as someone else....or....spending 10 mins playing, dieing then 5 mins trying to get back to the point you were at before dieing, and again and again. This makes a 8hr long game into a 30 hour game, the causal audience dont have time for it, dont care much for it. With soul switching at least you can finish a 20 min map in 20 mins, feel like youve acomplished something, and maybe wanna try it a different way next time "cause it was fun".

DreamMarine
03-15-2006, 03:17 AM
One important point about soul switching for me is, that if one of the operators dies, YOU have the choice: Do i accept the casuality and bring the mission to a successful end... or do i start from the beginning, because i want the perfect mission.

It's really annoying, if you clear 90% of the tangos, get killed... and wooosh... the game is over immediately... i MUST start from the beginning. I hate that! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

I want to bring the mission to an end and decide THEN if i am satisfied with the result. Why should we take away this decision from the player?!


Another point, as someone else said before: I love to switch from sniper to a MP5 guy... then to another fireteam... so i wouldn't miss ANY part of the mission. I am always there where the most action and immersion is for me.

And still... i don't HAVE to. So again, why should we take away the decision from the player?!

DreamMarine
03-15-2006, 03:24 AM
Ah, one more point:

if i can control any of my operatives i care much more about them, because they are ALL "a part of me". I develop much more a kind of "connection" to them. The result is a better immersion!

if i am always the same player, the other operatives are more disposable. They are just VIRTUAL guys after all! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brettzies
03-15-2006, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by DreamMarine:
Another point, as someone else said before: I love to switch from sniper to a MP5 guy... then to another fireteam... so i wouldn't miss ANY part of the mission. I am always there where the most action and immersion is for me

Not only that, but sometimes it's essential for better or worse. Or, you can paly the game/mission from a totally different perspective by controling a different team for the entire mission expanding the life of the game.


if i can control any of my operatives i care much more about them, because they are ALL "a part of me". I develop much more a kind of "connection" to them. The result is a better immersion!

Good point, that's also why I like having a rewards/upgrade system. By upgrades, I don't mean, "you get a new gun or attachment." More like you operatives earn medals, badges, and experience. Even the simple combat point method in the first GR gave you a reason to keep your guys alive. Plus it's just cool when they earn a bunch of medals.

reggo
03-15-2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by DreamMarine:
Another point, as someone else said before: I love to switch from sniper to a MP5 guy... then to another fireteam... so i wouldn't miss ANY part of the mission. I am always there where the most action and immersion is for me.


More on that...

For R6 to have realism, CT members MUST have their specialty. The assault specialist can handle the M4 but not the sniper riffle. And the sniper can't go in a CQB fight with the MP5. And the RECON specialist can't do the job of the DEMO guy and disarm bombs.

On the other hand, for the player to have as much FUN and as much CHOICES as possible, and for the game to have as much REPLAYABILITY as possible, the player must be allowed to do 'soul switching'.

It's the only way to play with all the weapons/tools in a context of specialized operatives.

subzero1900
03-15-2006, 01:44 PM
reggo, the idea of class baised weapons is incredibly ******ed, nothing dictates what a sniper carrys except what he chooses. nothing designates what a explosive expert carries except himself, nothing tells a grunt what hes going to carry.

They can be less efficient than someone whose trained but to say his hands are melting whenever he picks up another weapon is really ******ed

reggo
03-15-2006, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by subzero1900:
reggo, the idea of class baised weapons is incredibly ******ed, nothing dictates what a sniper carrys except what he chooses. nothing designates what a explosive expert carries except himself, nothing tells a grunt what hes going to carry.


I didn't suggested that a sniper should be prevented to take a MP5, but I come back with that latter...


Originally posted by subzero1900:
They can be less efficient than someone whose trained...


YES! THAT'S THE POINT!


Originally posted by subzero1900:
but to say his hands are melting whenever he picks up another weapon is really ******ed


Agree! Hands should not melt, but burn! j/k http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You didn't like RvS? You were able to take whatever you wanted. However, if you were, let say, an assault specialist, then you were less effective with the sniper riffle (huge and slow recovering reticule bloom).

Maybe there would be better ways to implement the 'less effective with that weapon' aspect, but the idea is there: You can take whatever weapon you want, but the sniper will be far more effective than the assault guy with sniper riffles.

I don't think it's '******ed'. It does indeed make sense and is quite realistic. For instance, in real life, I don't think all operatives are trained in disarming explosives. Still, everybody can give it a try, but chances are that things may blow up more easily for some people...

Now I have to say that there were things stupidly done in RvS. The best example is the sniper specialist.

If this guy has become a sniper, it's because he was exceptionally skilled with pistols and ordinary riffles. Now the 'genius' designers behind RvS gave the snipers bad skills with every weapons but sniper riffles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif The outcome was that snipers were really inefficient with pistols (their self-defence secondary weapon). This is theoretically impossible, and even worst, you can't practically self-defend yourself in the game since your pistol reticule bloom if awful.

Anyway, I think you get the idea. If things would be implement in a proper and a logical way, you should be able to use whatever you want, but your specialty/class would make you more comfortable with some weapons/tools than others. At least clearly enough for justifying giving the right tool to the right man.

Brettzies
03-15-2006, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by reggo:
The best example is the sniper specialist. If this guy has become a sniper, it's because he was exceptionally skilled with pistols and ordinary riffles. Now the 'genius' designers behind RvS gave the snipers bad skills with every weapons but sniper riffles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif The outcome was that snipers were really inefficient with pistols (their self-defence secondary weapon). This is theoretically impossible, and even worst, you can't practically self-defend yourself in the game since you pistol reticule bloom if awful.

My suggestion in the RSDAC thread is that all ops should be rated in weapon categories, not just assualt and sniper. Some would be better with sub guns, some with ARs, obviously the snipers would be highly rated in Sniper, but they might also have a nice AR or a high pistol rating too. On the othe hand, an assualter may be low on the sniper scale, but great with smg and ARs. The disparity between the sniper and his pistol in RvS was ludicrous though. I'd think they would be pretty good with semi fire ARs as well.

reggo
03-15-2006, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Brettzies:
My suggestion in the RSDAC thread is that all ops should be rated in weapon categories, not just assualt and sniper. Some would be better with sub guns, some with ARs, obviously the snipers would be highly rated in Sniper, but they might also have a nice AR or a high pistol rating too. On the othe hand, an assualter may be low on the sniper scale, but great with smg and ARs. The disparity between the sniper and his pistol in RvS was ludicrous though. I'd think they would be pretty good with semi fire ARs as well.


Fully agree!

If I remember correctly how it works in America's Army, you can do the 'sniper school' if and only if you made 36/40 or better on the semi-auto M16A2 firing range. And since AA is supposed to 'reproduce' how things work in real US army...

IMHO, the sniper could have a score still higher than the assault guys with Assault riffles, SMGs an pistols, and it would pretty much depict real life.

Woosy
03-15-2006, 05:11 PM
One of the reasons i stopped playing Americas Army was just because of that rating system, it wasn't balanced enough, and if I wasn't good enough to get the sniper I would get sniped from far away and everyone with rifles too.

If you're talking about the GRAW system where marksman is betetr with a rifle and sniper and useless with a M60 thats a cool idea, but talk of that Americas Army system makes me shudder.

Brettzies
03-15-2006, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Woosy:
If you're talking about the GRAW system where marksman is betetr with a rifle and sniper and useless with a M60 thats a cool idea, but talk of that Americas Army system makes me shudder.
AA was ok, but a lot things I didn't like about it, same as BF2. I'm talking in terms of RvS where each operative had a rating for assualt, which seemed to determine the ret for everything but sniper rifles. But if each operative had seperate ratings for each type of weapon, your sniper wouldn't be useless with a pistol. More for the SP game I think.

Even in MP this could work somehow. Maybe like the GR way, or maybe you get a set of points to distribute among pistol, smg, AR, etc as you see fit in addition to picking a class.

Malleus.
03-15-2006, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by Brettzies:
I'm talking in terms of RvS where each operative had a rating for assualt, which seemed to determine the ret for everything but sniper rifles. But if each operative had seperate ratings for each type of weapon, your sniper wouldn't be useless with a pistol. More for the SP game I think.

Some thought on snipers in RvS:
With the added weapon customization (in RvS), (where you could add a scope to almost any of your weapons) the sniper class became completely useless. They weren't good enough with the pistol, so they couldn't defend themselves in CQB, but any assault operative with a scoped FNC (for example) could snipe the enemy from across the map. (And IIRC the SP maps didn't really need snipers at all - any distance could be covered with a scoped AR). So it would take more effort to make snipers useful - your idea about rating for each weapon category sounds good, but there should be maps that really support/need snipers.

Brettzies
03-15-2006, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Malleus.:Some thought on snipers in RvS:
With the added weapon customization (in RvS), (where you could add a scope to almost any of your weapons) the sniper class became completely useless. They weren't good enough with the pistol, so they couldn't defend themselves in CQB, but any assault operative with a scoped FNC (for example) could snipe the enemy from across the map. (And IIRC the SP maps didn't really need snipers at all - any distance could be covered with a scoped AR). So it would take more effort to make snipers useful - your idea about rating for each weapon category sounds good, but there should be maps that really support/need snipers.

True. I rarely used a sniper. A few missions I wanted a better zoom though to insure a head shot kill at certain points. However, many times I'd pick one of the assaulters with a good enough sniper rating to get the job done, so then he/she(one of the girls was good) could join the assualt with their pistol. Not as good as Johnson, but he was so bad with a pistol, and I loved using the pistols.

reggo
03-15-2006, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Malleus.:
... there should be maps that really support/need snipers.


Definitely!

The only RvS map really worth of taking a sniper in it was the 'lumber yard' map from Athena Sword. In SP 'tango hunt' and 'hostage rescue', there were some good opportunities there for sniping.

I really hope the future R6 iterations will have at least a few more large open area maps designed with some sniping opportunities in mind.

Geiger
03-16-2006, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by Thump248th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vert22110:

So, let me ask you this... WHY should we widen the target audience? I see nothing wrong with a tactical shoooter specific audience.

Because they want a new BMW (substitue whatever material possession you wish) and jacking up Rainbow was their best concept. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gosh, you got us pegged. Why on earth would any company want to sell more products so they have more money to pump into the next version of the game? Maybe if we just sit here pondering this post's genius long enough a bunch of money will fall out of our butts to cover all of those customers we could have had if only people like you would work with people like KungFu to identify ways to broaden the appeal without dumbing down the game.

:P

Thump248th
03-16-2006, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Geiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thump248th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vert22110:

So, let me ask you this... WHY should we widen the target audience? I see nothing wrong with a tactical shoooter specific audience.

Because they want a new BMW (substitue whatever material possession you wish) and jacking up Rainbow was their best concept. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gosh, you got us pegged. Why on earth would any company want to sell more products so they have more money to pump into the next version of the game? Maybe if we just sit here pondering this post's genius long enough a bunch of money will fall out of our butts to cover all of those customers we could have had if only people like you would work with people like KungFu to identify ways to broaden the appeal without dumbing down the game.

:P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pegged?...more like bullseyed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

From what UBI has shown us with the patching/support, community communications, and the "ingenuity" of Lockdown, I don't think they are doing too good of a job at resource management. They may be pumping money, but the question is where? (not to say that it is wrong to make a buck, just don't B.S. me and expect me to take it as gospel) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif And they are putting money back into the genre because they plan on eating next year and a single game will not feed/house/etc them into their retirement. Same situation applies to car manufacturers, construction workers, and everyone else. Our economy runs on perpetual consumerism.

"Money out of our butts"....now that about equals the amount of genious, effort, and time I put into my post....

So basically you are telling your customers that they should be paying you for them to do your company's job?

Not to say that I'm completely a negative nancy about everything and I can see some logic into this thinking (assuming that I am getting it right). The customers know what they want, they are more than willing to express their opinion, and there is a solid group of them (the counsel I'm assuming) that will intelligently and concisely represent the whole. It is here that you have a great tool to achieve both ends. But a however is involved....giving is a two way street and when one side is doing all of the percievable work, then animosity grows (especially if they aren't getting paid/rewarded for their work). We haven't been given an official name (which has been alluded to as Vegas but nothing substantial) let alone a bone to teeth on and yet we are being given demands to find ways to appeal to everyone (something a company should be able to do internally). You are asking a community that has been let down (no implication intended) multiple times over the timespan of years to come to bat for you without giving them reason to do so.

Geiger
03-17-2006, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Thump248th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Geiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thump248th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vert22110:

So, let me ask you this... WHY should we widen the target audience? I see nothing wrong with a tactical shoooter specific audience.

Because they want a new BMW (substitue whatever material possession you wish) and jacking up Rainbow was their best concept. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gosh, you got us pegged. Why on earth would any company want to sell more products so they have more money to pump into the next version of the game? Maybe if we just sit here pondering this post's genius long enough a bunch of money will fall out of our butts to cover all of those customers we could have had if only people like you would work with people like KungFu to identify ways to broaden the appeal without dumbing down the game.

:P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pegged?...more like bullseyed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

From what UBI has shown us with the patching/support, community communications, and the "ingenuity" of Lockdown, I don't think they are doing too good of a job at resource management. They may be pumping money, but the question is where? (not to say that it is wrong to make a buck, just don't B.S. me and expect me to take it as gospel) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif And they are putting money back into the genre because they plan on eating next year and a single game will not feed/house/etc them into their retirement. Same situation applies to car manufacturers, construction workers, and everyone else. Our economy runs on perpetual consumerism.

"Money out of our butts"....now that about equals the amount of genious, effort, and time I put into my post....

So basically you are telling your customers that they should be paying you for them to do your company's job?

Not to say that I'm completely a negative nancy about everything and I can see some logic into this thinking (assuming that I am getting it right). The customers know what they want, they are more than willing to express their opinion, and there is a solid group of them (the counsel I'm assuming) that will intelligently and concisely represent the whole. It is here that you have a great tool to achieve both ends. But a however is involved....giving is a two way street and when one side is doing all of the percievable work, then animosity grows (especially if they aren't getting paid/rewarded for their work). We haven't been given an official name (which has been alluded to as Vegas but nothing substantial) let alone a bone to teeth on and yet we are being given demands to find ways to appeal to everyone (something a company should be able to do internally). You are asking a community that has been let down (no implication intended) multiple times over the timespan of years to come to bat for you without giving them reason to do so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Way to pay attention to what was said in the previous posts. Your response is completely out of context.

Woosy
03-17-2006, 01:22 PM
Back to the original point, I think to really appeal they need to add more realism. Alot of people didn't like The original or the sequel or even Ghost recon because it had no gun view adding that gun view in RVS appealed to a huge market, adding AEGIA physics and body awareness will be another way to get people to play.

One because people want to be immersed and be wowed, and secondly there is too many dam people out there with super rigs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif that want a taste of this new phsyics, it's the next best thing.

There needs to be alot more objective game modes for online play, a better ranking system, seperate ones for people who like fragging and who like teamplay.

And to appeal to all the people ubi lost in the transition from the old gameplay to Lockdown need to go back one step and bring back what worked and fix the flaws running gunning, random spawns etc... Thats a start.

Thump248th
03-17-2006, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Geiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thump248th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Geiger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Thump248th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vert22110:

So, let me ask you this... WHY should we widen the target audience? I see nothing wrong with a tactical shoooter specific audience.

Because they want a new BMW (substitue whatever material possession you wish) and jacking up Rainbow was their best concept. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gosh, you got us pegged. Why on earth would any company want to sell more products so they have more money to pump into the next version of the game? Maybe if we just sit here pondering this post's genius long enough a bunch of money will fall out of our butts to cover all of those customers we could have had if only people like you would work with people like KungFu to identify ways to broaden the appeal without dumbing down the game.

:P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pegged?...more like bullseyed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

From what UBI has shown us with the patching/support, community communications, and the "ingenuity" of Lockdown, I don't think they are doing too good of a job at resource management. They may be pumping money, but the question is where? (not to say that it is wrong to make a buck, just don't B.S. me and expect me to take it as gospel) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif And they are putting money back into the genre because they plan on eating next year and a single game will not feed/house/etc them into their retirement. Same situation applies to car manufacturers, construction workers, and everyone else. Our economy runs on perpetual consumerism.

"Money out of our butts"....now that about equals the amount of genious, effort, and time I put into my post....

So basically you are telling your customers that they should be paying you for them to do your company's job?

Not to say that I'm completely a negative nancy about everything and I can see some logic into this thinking (assuming that I am getting it right). The customers know what they want, they are more than willing to express their opinion, and there is a solid group of them (the counsel I'm assuming) that will intelligently and concisely represent the whole. It is here that you have a great tool to achieve both ends. But a however is involved....giving is a two way street and when one side is doing all of the percievable work, then animosity grows (especially if they aren't getting paid/rewarded for their work). We haven't been given an official name (which has been alluded to as Vegas but nothing substantial) let alone a bone to teeth on and yet we are being given demands to find ways to appeal to everyone (something a company should be able to do internally). You are asking a community that has been let down (no implication intended) multiple times over the timespan of years to come to bat for you without giving them reason to do so. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Way to pay attention to what was said in the previous posts. Your response is completely out of context. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice try, but you (like your company) are going to have to try harder.

You were responding to my post basically claiming that UBI is trying to expand the market so that they can become more wealthy. If you are telling me that this is not accurate, then you really need to re-evaluate the company you work for...

My post does not have to take into account any of the previous posts because of the fact that you were responding to my post that predated theirs. Therefore, their posts have zero bearing on what I had said (I can't be influenced by things that have yet to occur). You were going after what I had said and I in turn responded to your post. Now if you were talking about vert's post, let us re-examin it and see what I "took out of context".


Originally posted by vert22110:

Err, those sound like added features, not gameplay mechanics.

Someone said it, I think it was SOD Sniper, that trying to appeal to a wider audience usually ends up appealing to NO ONE.

The ONLY games I can think of that appeal to a very wide audience are Counter-Strike (especially at release) and Battlefield 2. Both games have a mix of elements, but neither game elements are "Dumbed down".

Personally, I think Ubisoft should stop trying to make more money, appeal to the audience they already have (or whatever they have left after LD) and be done with it. There is no need to "widen the audience".

So, let me ask you this... WHY should we widen the target audience? I see nothing wrong with a tactical shoooter specific audience.


Where/what did I exactly take out of context? He asked why should they/we widen the target audience and I responded with "they want more matieral possessions." This falls in line with him stating that "I think UBI should stop trying to make more money and appeal to the audience they already have."

Brettzies
03-17-2006, 03:43 PM
If you guys want to post-argue, at least make it readable. Entire post quotes inside of quotes, I can't read enought to even tell who said what. This was a good thread for a while, until it turned into one-on-one ubi sucks, no it doesnt', yes it does. "yes it does, no it doesn't, yes it doesn't anymore because it does still" oh wait? Actually, I don't care if anyone wants to bash on ubi or each other but this isn't working.