Rainbow Six Siege new video

DirasyajX

Commented on 2015-03-30 18:47:19

Nice!! cant wait

In reply to

MordeaniisChaos

Commented on 2015-03-30 20:16:28

A little more fantastical than I was hoping, but it still looks like an incredibly fun time with friends.

In reply to

b0vril

Commented on 2015-03-30 20:50:32

cool! I wonder what terrorist units we get to play as!

In reply to

crookedmind

Commented on 2015-03-30 22:33:51

It's been so long I can't remember what game made me stop liking the series. What was after Raven Shield? But, the highlighted players elsewhere in the map seems amateur.

In reply to

bleachedsmiles

Commented on 2015-03-30 23:11:08

man...talk about visual downgrade. I currently watching the IGN live stream, and it looks nowhere near as polished as the E3 showing...neither does this newly released trailer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMyorqmzk00 - just a quick view of that shows a far better level of destruction, animations, and lighting.

This kinda stuff gets to the point where it starts getting pointless being impressed by E3 reveals

In reply to

Tinks

Commented on 2015-03-30 23:14:43

I just wish all the breakable stuff weren't looking so geometric like in the IGN stream
Also so weightless

In reply to

Xoar

Commented on 2015-03-30 23:26:36

Been watching the vids on Gamespot and IGN as well...

Game does not look like a Rainbow game! Why is it so fast and manic? Rainbow games are supposed to be slow and tactical. Why are players lit up like Christmas trees? 3 minute matches? Are you joking Ubi?

Sadly i have no faith in Ubi ever delivering another good Rainbow title. This game looks built for the COD/Battlefield crowd.

In reply to

MrWhite

Commented on 2015-03-30 23:44:50 In reply to Xoar

Posted by Xoar

Been watching the vids on Gamespot and IGN as well...

Game does not look like a Rainbow game! Why is it so fast and manic? Rainbow games are supposed to be slow and tactical. Why are players lit up like Christmas trees? 3 minute matches? Are you joking Ubi?

Sadly i have no faith in Ubi ever delivering another good Rainbow title. This game looks built for the COD/Battlefield crowd.

What do you expect? These days game design gets pissed on in favour for hand-holding, casual friendly mechanics and gameplay. It expands across the board in all genres.

In reply to

Xoar

Commented on 2015-03-31 00:49:56 In reply to MrWhite

Posted by MrWhite

What do you expect? These days game design gets pissed on in favour for hand-holding, casual friendly mechanics and gameplay. It expands across the board in all genres.

Surely one day someone will go out on a limb and give us oldies a slow tactical game again where running about like a headless chicken gets you no where...If not i might as well give up gaming and go purely into sim race mode :(

In reply to

bleachedsmiles

Commented on 2015-03-31 01:01:34 In reply to MrWhite

But it makes no sense then initially selling the game to the world as something it's not does it? Ubi soft aren't new to the market...why reveal a game as slower paced and tactical (which is still the message they're selling with it right now btw) and get that vision heavily praised...only to adopt a more 'hand holding' approach later? I mean, business wise 'hand-holding' in games makes sense...it allows you to reach the widest audience, but if that's the goal you'd think they'd push to reach that day 1 wouldn't you? so that every media on it promotes how accessible it is.

In reply to

Xoar

Commented on 2015-03-31 01:04:08

And what will happen is the COD/Battlefield crowd will jump on board with this and leave after 2 months, Us guys will jump on board hoping that 1 game mode will suit and if not will leave after 2 months and the online side of things will be empty like what happened to Ghost Recon last gen.

The only shooter i have enjoyed since COD 4 was TLOU online, Survivors in that game is similar to the older Rainbow games...they totally nailed it.

In reply to

bleachedsmiles

Commented on 2015-03-31 01:13:49

Yeah it will never pull in cod/bf numbers...but that's just the nature of the beast, the rainbow 6 franchise doesnt have that same pull.

What they've done is opted for gameplay over realism...which maybe is the right approach. The players lit up are your team mates btw, not the other team. And once you die you're pretty much hand-holding the rest of the team anyway as you use security cameras - the games very communication heavy - which in itself is what's going to have it bring in a limited crowd (randoms don't communicate well with randoms).

It's definitely faster paced though, and the gun play seems very 'twitch shooter'.

I'm just annoyed that with such limited number of players on map, and a supposed slower tone to the game, that so much immersion and atmosphere seems to have been lost along with the quite obvious visual downgrade...which you'd think there'd really be no need for.

In reply to

vansant

Commented on 2015-03-31 01:38:03

I'm 36 I started on Intelevision. I miss the days when new systems and games meant better graphics and gameplay. I was blown away by Golden Eye when that released. Not only were the graphics cool but there was hit detection, option for stealth or action. You could zoom in down the barrel, alarms would go off, guys would hunt you down etc. This was all new at the time and I don't think much has changed since. I think Rockstar is the only company that focuses on both still.

In reply to

Tinks

Commented on 2015-03-31 04:38:02

The main issue is that there are so many games to play now.

A game like Goldeneye could come out and it'd be the best game you had to play for a few years at a time.

Now things need to be made quickly with more elaborate schemes to make profit like dlc's
Everyone moves on so fast now to the next game

A game like this could be made quicker and appeal to a less niche/risky consumer base

Rainbow Six hasn't been slow and tactical for a loooooooong time now

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2015-03-31 14:53:47 In reply to Tinks

I think the pacing is somewhat dictated by the players and the map. Single elimination gametypes on tiny maps are never going to yield rounds that are more than a few minutes long. This does not negate tactics. See Counter Strike.

I have no faith in Ubisoft.. but this looks like the best R6 since Raven Shield.. on paper.

Posted by Tinks

A game like Goldeneye could come out and it'd be the best game you had to play for a few years at a time.

Unless you had already played the vastly superior Quake.

Posted by Tinks

Everyone moves on so fast now to the next game

I find this more true of the console audience. The biggest FPS in the world is CS:GO; Team Fortress 2 is still popular; L4D2 still has a serviceable audience; The BF4 audience is more stable, long term, than the PS4 audience; Planetside 2 has a healthy, stable population; and ArmA! Honestly the list goes on and on.

And I expect the next generation of F2P shooters to yield some heavy hitters too. Stuff like UT should be supported and played for years to come. A lot of PC devs are learning about and leaning towards long term monetization. The three big MOBAs aren't going anywhere either. Or Minecraft.

In reply to

I think the pacing is somewhat dictated by the players and the map. Single elimination gametypes on tiny maps are never going to yield rounds that are more than a few minutes long. This does not negate tactics. See Counter Strike.

I have no faith in Ubisoft.. but this looks like the best R6 since Raven Shield.. on paper.

[quote=Tinks]A game like Goldeneye could come out and it'd be the best game you had to play for a few years at a time.[/quote]

Unless you had already played the vastly superior Quake.

[quote=Tinks]Everyone moves on so fast now to the next game[/quote]

I find this more true of the console audience. The biggest FPS in the world is CS:GO; Team Fortress 2 is still popular; L4D2 still has a serviceable audience; The BF4 audience is more stable, long term, than the PS4 audience; Planetside 2 has a healthy, stable population; and ArmA! Honestly the list goes on and on.

And I expect the next generation of F2P shooters to yield some heavy hitters too. Stuff like UT should be supported and played for years to come. A lot of PC devs are learning about and leaning towards long term monetization. The three big MOBAs aren't going anywhere either. Or Minecraft.

MrWhite

Commented on 2015-03-31 21:05:44 In reply to bleachedsmiles

Posted by bleachedsmiles

But it makes no sense then initially selling the game to the world as something it's not does it? Ubi soft aren't new to the market...why reveal a game as slower paced and tactical (which is still the message they're selling with it right now btw) and get that vision heavily praised...only to adopt a more 'hand holding' approach later? I mean, business wise 'hand-holding' in games makes sense...it allows you to reach the widest audience, but if that's the goal you'd think they'd push to reach that day 1 wouldn't you? so that every media on it promotes how accessible it is.

Because, to the layman, this will give the appearance of a slower-paced, tactical shooter, because when compared to their standard fare (usually COD and to a lesser extent, BF) it is. To those that know, and have experienced what a real slower paced tactical shooter used to be because gaming used to be niche back in the day, these marketing ploys and gameplay elements are immediately transparent. I really don't think the majority of gamers, particularly on console, have the patience and (this might sound a bit arrogant) maturity to sit and actually plan things out, discuss tactics etc, without immediately getting bored and wanting to go in like Rambo, either because there's no kill streaks or auto aim to help get a no scope headshot. These little subtle hand-holding elements are now the bread and butter of the mainstream FPS. If you remove any of them, you risk a backlash of complaints and loses of sales that subsequently comes with it if it's too difficult to play. You know, the jam smeared across the screen to let you know you've been hit; the respawning health; auto-lock on aim, X-ray see through walls, scopes out the arse etc...and I'm sure there's a few more I've forgotten. Really, it's all bled into one. There's very little in design to distinguish in FPS's these days, unless you're still into the old school stuff like UT, which is, and always has been, it's own thing.

In reply to

[quote=bleachedsmiles]But it makes no sense then initially selling the game to the world as something it's not does it? Ubi soft aren't new to the market...why reveal a game as slower paced and tactical (which is still the message they're selling with it right now btw) and get that vision heavily praised...only to adopt a more 'hand holding' approach later? I mean, business wise 'hand-holding' in games makes sense...it allows you to reach the widest audience, but if that's the goal you'd think they'd push to reach that day 1 wouldn't you? so that every media on it promotes how accessible it is.[/quote]
Because, to the layman, this will give the appearance of a slower-paced, tactical shooter, because when compared to their standard fare (usually COD and to a lesser extent, BF) it is. To those that know, and have experienced what a real slower paced tactical shooter used to be because gaming used to be niche back in the day, these marketing ploys and gameplay elements are immediately transparent. I really don't think the majority of gamers, particularly on console, have the patience and (this might sound a bit arrogant) maturity to sit and actually plan things out, discuss tactics etc, without immediately getting bored and wanting to go in like Rambo, either because there's no kill streaks or auto aim to help get a no scope headshot. These little subtle hand-holding elements are now the bread and butter of the mainstream FPS. If you remove any of them, you risk a backlash of complaints and loses of sales that subsequently comes with it if it's too difficult to play. You know, the jam smeared across the screen to let you know you've been hit; the respawning health; auto-lock on aim, X-ray see through walls, scopes out the arse etc...and I'm sure there's a few more I've forgotten. Really, it's all bled into one. There's very little in design to distinguish in FPS's these days, unless you're still into the old school stuff like UT, which is, and always has been, it's own thing.

GriftGFX

Commented on 2015-03-31 22:40:37

I think there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of the genre. I find comfort in CS:GO being reigning king of FPS, and I see a lot of variety in both current and upcoming multiplayer shooters. Call of Duty is still pretty popular, but I think gamers and developers alike are getting over Call of Duty. Its influence seems to be fading, while the state of its contemporaries are improving. That includes stuff like Battlefield and even Halo. Advanced Warfare was DOA on the PC. That's a good thing.

Beyond that, the free to play landscape is delivering some promising results. The existing landscape is filled with a lot of pay-to-win nonsense (which is pretty popular in the east), but there are gems like Planetside 2. Games like DirtyBomb, Unreal Tournament, and Overwatch all wandering into new (and sometimes old) territory. And developers seem increasingly inspired by CS:GO (and League of Legends/DOTA) when they consider both the long term monetization of their games, and also the popularity of competitive match making.

I also think MOBAs prove that complexity isn't necessarily a deal breaker for larger audiences. I'm pretty optimistic. I think things are generally on the up-and-up.

In reply to

I think there are reasons to be optimistic about the future of the genre. I find comfort in CS:GO being reigning king of FPS, and I see a lot of variety in both current and upcoming multiplayer shooters. Call of Duty is still pretty popular, but I think gamers and developers alike are getting over Call of Duty. Its influence seems to be fading, while the state of its contemporaries are improving. That includes stuff like Battlefield and even Halo. Advanced Warfare was DOA on the PC. That's a good thing.

Beyond that, the free to play landscape is delivering some promising results. The existing landscape is filled with a lot of pay-to-win nonsense (which is pretty popular in the east), but there are gems like Planetside 2. Games like DirtyBomb, Unreal Tournament, and Overwatch all wandering into new (and sometimes old) territory. And developers seem increasingly inspired by CS:GO (and League of Legends/DOTA) when they consider both the long term monetization of their games, and also the popularity of competitive match making.

I also think MOBAs prove that complexity isn't necessarily a deal breaker for larger audiences. I'm pretty optimistic. I think things are generally on the up-and-up.

bleachedsmiles

Commented on 2015-04-01 20:18:18 In reply to MrWhite

The majority of online gamers want to be the hero - the top ranking of their team. You're right, very few want to take orders from "a leader" - which is what a more tactical game would require. These games are all about communication...and most don't particularly care to speak on mic to strangers (usually for good reason when it comes to gaming). This game will be great playing with a group of mates...randoms though, who knows - odds will be stacked against it depending on just how much communication it relies on.

Maybe they should get rid of the kill counts on these types of games. Have the only points earned being team wins. Goes for personal unlocks too.

In reply to

GriftGFX

Commented on 2015-04-01 20:31:40 In reply to bleachedsmiles

Wise men say only noobs rush in. Playing for the top of the scoreboard is not the same as being "rambo," especially in single elimination. There's nothing inherently wrong with trying to be the best. Passive players are problematic too. There's a lot of dead weight out there. That's why Elo match making is so appealing. It works wonders for CS:GO and the MOBA crowd. Those games require coordination as well.

Removing stats from the scoreboard is pretty pointless. DirtyBomb did it recently. It doesn't actually model player behavior. And KDR is a component to performing in most team games. If you are dying more than you are killing, there's a good chance that you're detrimental to your team.

5v5 is also a good player count for a game that requires a high degree of teamwork. It's easier to find a group of 5 than 8 or 16 or 32. It makes league play viable, which is often where a game like this shines. I'm still pretty skeptical of Ubisoft though.

In reply to