Rainbow Six: Siege

[nocturnus]

Have you guys even played the beta? The game is a typical ubisoft turd. Seriously, don't waste your money on this one it wil absolutely bore you very very quickly.

ubi haven't released a decent rainbowsix since raven shield.

[Deleted]

Have you guys even played the beta? The game is a typical ubisoft turd. Seriously, don't waste your money on this one it wil absolutely bore you very very quickly.

ubi haven't released a decent rainbowsix since raven shield.

Oh, there's radio towers that reveal meaningless side quests?

[nocturnus]

Oh, there's radio towers that reveal meaningless side quests?

I have no idea what this means.

[Donald Hellscream]

I have no idea what this means.

Just a running joke in regard to ubisoft games and their openworld titles having a lot of towers to climb, radio towers to activate etc.

[Deleted]

Just a running joke in regard to ubisoft games and their openworld titles having a lot of towers to climb, radio towers to activate etc.

Honestly that's the only thing that comes into mind when someone complains about a generic ubisoft game. Otherwise I haven't really had problems with them other than the piss poor performance of some of the titles.

[nocturnus]

Just a running joke in regard to ubisoft games and their openworld titles having a lot of towers to climb, radio towers to activate etc.

Aha, thanks for the explanation The last ubi game I really played was Raven Shield (some 15 years ago).

Honestly that's the only thing that comes into mind when someone complains about a generic ubisoft game. Otherwise I haven't really had problems with them other than the piss poor performance of some of the titles.

In my day ubi were known for releasing alpha quality games, which were hardly ever updated or patched. While Raven Shield had great potential game play, the performance was abhorrent, for example.

[Acelius]

Have you guys even played the beta? The game is a typical ubisoft turd. Seriously, don't waste your money on this one it wil absolutely bore you very very quickly.

ubi haven't released a decent rainbowsix since raven shield.

I don't know, the competitive aspect is certainly entertaining and the game functions pretty well. It just needs bigger maps, more operators and more weapons.

And how would you know it's a "typical ubisoft turd" when you said the last ubisoft game you played was Raven Shield 15 years ago?

[nocturnus]

I don't know, the competitive aspect is certainly entertaining and the game functions pretty well. It just needs bigger maps, more operators and more weapons.

I think it has 0 competitive potential. The game's mechanics are too gimmicky. You can use a zillion tools to achieve your goal, but the most efficient way is the CS approach.

In the end, the game turned out to be a turn based camp fest. Hardly strategic, especially with all the arcadey messages constantly popping up and friendly wallhack that ruins immersion.

Developers constantly overdo their work and seem to forget the simple fact that less is more.

[Acelius]

I think it has 0 competitive potential. The game's mechanics are too gimmicky. You can use a zillion tools to achieve your goal, but the most efficient way is the CS approach.

In the end, the game turned out to be a turn based camp fest. Hardly strategic, especially with all the arcadey messages constantly popping up and friendly wallhack that ruins immersion.

Developers constantly overdo their work and seem to forget the simple fact that less is more.

To some degree I agree with you, they should toss everything out the window regarding messages and drone-spotting. However I think the game has potential to become a truly competitive heavyweight. They just need bigger maps with more vantage points. As you said, everyone just hunker down around the objectives, barricading every single door and wait for the enemy to enter.

If they made it so every wall, floor etc. could be breached completely it would open up the tactical landscape immensely instead of having those few dedicated spots for breaching which are easily camped.

But we'll see, it is a beta afterall but I'm pretty excited to see where they take this game. I could use another competitive fps when I'm not playing CS.

[Deleted]

Have you guys even played the beta? The game is a typical ubisoft turd. Seriously, don't waste your money on this one it wil absolutely bore you very very quickly.

ubi haven't released a decent rainbowsix since raven shield.

I actually liked Rainbox Six 3 as well as Rainbow Six Vegas 1 and 2.

It's a much more tactical shooter than many modern shooters. You mess up, you die. It's that danger that makes you think about your strategy. That's what sets it apart from many other shooters.

I don't know about Rainbow Six Siege however, I don't like how it doesn't have a singleplayer campaign. But if the multiplayer is fun then I could still like it. But the multiplayer needs a lot of variety and perhaps some updates in order to have any replay value. It really could go both ways imo.

[nocturnus]

To some degree I agree with you, they should toss everything out the window regarding messages and drone-spotting. However I think the game has potential to become a truly competitive heavyweight. They just need bigger maps with more vantage points. As you said, everyone just hunker down around the objectives, barricading every single door and wait for the enemy to enter.

If they made it so every wall, floor etc. could be breached completely it would open up the tactical landscape immensely instead of having those few dedicated spots for breaching which are easily camped.

But we'll see, it is a beta afterall but I'm pretty excited to see where they take this game. I could use another competitive fps when I'm not playing CS.

Or your know, deviate from this standard, generic, extremely old, boring, bomb/SnD gameplay. Christ, does every shooter have to imitate counter strike? Where are the good old team death match games? You know, the ones where team work AND personal skill were of import (quake, unreal, etc.). It's quite sad that CoD's the only franchise that does that well enough.

[Acelius]

Or your know, deviate from this standard, generic, extremely old, boring, bomb/SnD gameplay. Christ, does every shooter have to imitate counter strike? Where are the good old team death match games? You know, the ones where team work AND personal skill were of import (quake, unreal, etc.). It's quite sad that CoD's the only franchise that does that well enough.

Would you honestly play a game consisting only of team death-match? Even Unreal Tournament had objective based game-modes from the very start. And clearly the "old, boring, bomb/snd gameplay" isn't outdated or boring considering the amount of players CS:GO has. Why fix something that isn't broken. If you want a different fps you have to look elsewhere than modern military shooters.

Also, teamwork in Quake? I remember team death-match in Quake 3: Arena, everyone just ran around and shot every enemy they saw. It took personal skill yes, but no teamwork.

[nocturnus]

Would you honestly play a game consisting only of team death-match? Even Unreal Tournament had objective based game-modes from the very start. And clearly the "old, boring, bomb/snd gameplay" isn't outdated or boring considering the amount of players CS:GO has. Why fix something that isn't broken. If you want a different fps you have to look elsewhere than modern military shooters.

Also, teamwork in Quake? I remember team death-match in Quake 3: Arena, everyone just ran around and shot every enemy they saw. It took personal skill yes, but no teamwork.

I think you're referring to public gameplay - that's never been interesting for the competitive player. You had 3v3 and 5v5 in quake as well, also quake was about 100 times more of a strategic mind-game than any other shooter. Unreal had capture the flag, which was very popular (and still is). DTM was also played a lot competitively.

You're right about the bomb game's appeal, I can't deny that. I have no idea why though. I don't understand why CS is so popular either. The game seems broken on so many layers its popularity baffles me. Maybe it owes its popularity to its reputation? Or the amount of pro gamers still playing it? Maybe I just suck at it (probably this, yet it's hard for me to accept sucking at a shooter, after being a top tier quake, painkiller and unreal player ˆˆ)

[Acelius]

I think you're referring to public gameplay - that's never been interesting for the competitive player. You had 3v3 and 5v5 in quake as well, also quake was about 100 times more of a strategic mind-game than any other shooter. Unreal had capture the flag, which was very popular (and still is). DTM was also played a lot competitively.

You're right about the bomb game's appeal, I can't deny that. I have no idea why though. I don't understand why CS is so popular either. The game seems broken on so many layers its popularity baffles me. Maybe it owes its popularity to its reputation? Or the amount of pro gamers still playing it? Maybe I just suck at it (probably this, yet it's hard for me to accept sucking at a shooter, after being a top tier quake, painkiller and unreal player ˆˆ)

Yep, gotta admit I was talking about public games. CS though is one of the most enjoyable games for me to play competitively. It's all about strategic positioning, relaying information to your teammates, placing your munitions right and of course be a great shooter. It is however, extremely unfriendly to newcomers and a lot of friends of mine don't like it because they are used to playing CoD and Battlefield. To each their own.

[nocturnus]

Yep, gotta admit I was talking about public games. CS though is one of the most enjoyable games for me to play competitively. It's all about strategic positioning, relaying information to your teammates, placing your munitions right and of course be a great shooter. It is however, extremely unfriendly to newcomers and a lot of friends of mine don't like it because they are used to playing CoD and Battlefield. To each their own.

I've played high level 1.6 back in the day, source and go's hitboxes just seem out of what - even worse than 1.6. Maybe I just outgrew the game, I don't know.

Everything else you mentioned is just as important in tdm though, with the exception of munition placement of course (never liked buy weapons system in CS. I like games were the play field is level.)

[minteK917]

except the problem is that this game is less tactical then cs. All the wallhack bullshit is not in cs. You actually need to be accurate in cs. This game has cod damage and weaponry and is about camping. You can kill someone just shooting half a second in their foot, try doing that in cs.

[vaeevictiss]

does anyone miss having the rainbow six games with the "mission plan" aspect to it... or have I just missed it since I loved it to bits in one of the originals?

You could gives your guys paths, sync points (where they'd wait for another action to finish before continuing with theirs) have radio queues etc etc. Don't think I've seen it since or I've REALLY not been paying attention.

lol, most of the time when i played them i would just go lone wolf. made it so much more challenging. Funny this thread came up because just this week i have installed the classics to play and am pissed i haven't been able to get Rogue Spear to work because that was my favorite.

I actually remember playing multiplayer with my buddy who lived around the corner. We had a two way radio so whenever one of us died, we could go into spectator mode and tell the other over the radio where everyone on the other team was lol.

I also remember that game you could actually edit the weapon files, so when you hosted a game you could use them. You just had to do it to a weapon people were most likely not going to pic. You could set the accuracy to be perfect, a crazy zoom level, the rate of fire and mag size. I remember people bitching after a game like...uh, how was i shot 288 times? dunno dude, must be a bug.

[Erolian]

I honestly find everything mediocre about this game. Even the hardest AI on t hunt are typical R6 aim bots that pretend to not know you exist while conveniently walking directly towards you backwards or spraying you with 100% accuracy through a smoke. Their difficulty feels cheap due to it just being a poor AI uplifted by insane shot placement and what seems to be the ability to see through walls. The gunplay is typical of today's games. Feels like BF and CoD combined. Lack of recoil a lot of the times and the high damage per bullet that isn't greatly affected by where the bullet actually lands (shooting someone in the foot is viable and kills super fast) feels a lot like CoD specifically. Can it be fun? Sure. Is it a contender for any sort of awards or high praise? No. Competitive merit? None.

[Acelius]

I've played high level 1.6 back in the day, source and go's hitboxes just seem out of what - even worse than 1.6. Maybe I just outgrew the game, I don't know.

Everything else you mentioned is just as important in tdm though, with the exception of munition placement of course (never liked buy weapons system in CS. I like games were the play field is level.)

I agree the hitbox in Source was abysmal. My biggest gripe with GO isn't the hitbox but rather the weapon recoil. The gun, visually, doesn't have much recoil but the bullets go all over the place which is very confusing at first.

[Treeskee]

For anyone who enjoyed this, there is another beta (open this time) happening 25th-29th with the game launching on the 1st. I'm fairly sure they're up now and it's a full reset I believe, so I'm watching the tutorials currently to unlock an operator :P