info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Rainbox Six Siege -- no regrets
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Rin Stowleigh
Dec 3, 2015, 7:13:29 PM12/3/15
to
I don't plan to go into too much depth on this game because I am not
aware of anyone who visits this NG that has an interest in this genre.
It's a tactical multiplayer shooter, and if you don't like tactical
multiplayer shooters there's no reason to even consider it. But, I'll
throw some thoughts out there just for the sake of random passersby
who stumble upon Usenet postings some other way.
Personally I've been looking forward to this game since it was
announced. It delivers on my expectations, but then again this does
not come as a big surprise, because I was involved in the closed
"alpha" and closed betas.
I'm just damn glad to finally have a game that makes me want to go out
of my way to play it. You know the feeling: you've got work to do, or
some sort of DIY project around the house that you want to get to, but
you find yourself postponing the important stuff because you want to
sneak in a few rounds of gaming. I'm sorry to say that games that
have that impact on me have been few and far between lately, luckily
this one satisfies that craving.
Pretty much the only negativity I've read about it online are from the
morons that give it a 0 out of 10 because it didn't include a single
player mode. Those little shitwads should have their teeth kicked in
for abusing the rating system like that, a single player campaign was
never promised for this game. The Rainbow Six series has never been
about the campaign, so really Ubi did exactly what all dev teams
should do -- focus on doing one or the other really well.
Now about the game itself -- at times it may seem a little TOO
focused. You are either an attacker or a defender, defending a
hostage/bomb, or trying to rescue/defuse. It's not a new theme but
the details are in the execution. The environments are always the
indoor of some building, so while the placement of the buildings
themselves does vary in their outdoor setting, nobody spends enough
time outside to do anything other than go inside and work on the
objective. I can see how the always-inside nature of the game could
seem repetitive to someone comparing it to some of the prior Rainbow
Six or Ghost Recon games, most of which had more variety in their
environment. However, this game is specifically focus on a particular
type of building siege (thus the name), and despite the seemingly
repetitive setting, no two rounds are ever quite the same. The fact
that your opponents are humans has a lot to with this of course, as
does the tactical variations provided by the different gadgets.
Ubi had me worried for a while, because just prior to release they
started pitching a seasons pass, and that it would allow access to
more operators (operators are like player classes, specialists that
have a particular weapon loadout and also specialized equipment --
there can only be one of each specialist type in each round), faster
XP gain etc., then I started seeing marketing crap for gold edition /
collectors edition etc and I started wondering if I was going to have
to pay more to get future maps and what not. Apparently not, I was
delighted to find that my purchase of the regular edition already came
with the season pass (I have not looked into whether that had anything
to do with me participating in the beta testing phases or not).
So, there's really nothing negative I can say at this point except
they waited too long to release a Rainbow Six game. It was long
overdue.
Ned Kelly
Dec 6, 2015, 3:09:44 AM12/6/15
to
Am 06.12.2015 um 06:08 schrieb Leg...@invalid.com:
> I have the game (free when I purchased a 980 Ti Hydro)
> and am playing the SINGLE PlAYER game!
Me too. Lonely Wolf its called.
--
Ciao, Ned.
> I have the game (free when I purchased a 980 Ti Hydro)
> and am playing the SINGLE PlAYER game!
Me too. Lonely Wolf its called.
--
Ciao, Ned.
Rin Stowleigh
Dec 6, 2015, 4:36:18 AM12/6/15
to
On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 00:08:16 -0500, Leg...@invalid.com wrote:
>On Thu, 03 Dec 2015 19:14:09 -0500, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>
>c<snip>
"terrorist hunt" (basically like multiplayer with bots), but it
doesn't try to wrap it into any real story or campaign. The bots with
AI are mainly put there for the benefit of co-op terrorist hunt (a key
feature of the last few R6 games), and of course the easiest way to
pull a single player game out of thin air is to simply take the co-op
game and make it solo.. heh
The people bitching about the lack of a campaign are talking about a
REAL single player mode. But, hopefully they will be happy to learn
that Far Cry Primal is single player only.
I actually think the "situations" are pretty fun. I think they really
exist only as a way to get more XP without playing online and act as a
sort of expanded tutorial (i.e. it's one thing to train on the
individual gadgets but its another thing to learn to use them in
practice). But Im spending most of my time in multiplayer.
>On Thu, 03 Dec 2015 19:14:09 -0500, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>
>c<snip>
>>Pretty much the only negativity I've read about it online are from the
>>morons that give it a 0 out of 10 because it didn't include a single
>>player mode. Those little shitwads should have their teeth kicked in
>>for abusing the rating system like that, a single player campaign was
>>never promised for this game. The Rainbow Six series has never been
>>about the campaign, so really Ubi did exactly what all dev teams
>>should do -- focus on doing one or the other really well.
><snip>
>>morons that give it a 0 out of 10 because it didn't include a single
>>player mode. Those little shitwads should have their teeth kicked in
>>for abusing the rating system like that, a single player campaign was
>>never promised for this game. The Rainbow Six series has never been
>>about the campaign, so really Ubi did exactly what all dev teams
>>should do -- focus on doing one or the other really well.
>
> I have the game (free when I purchased a 980 Ti Hydro)
>and am playing the SINGLE PlAYER game!
Yes, it has what has been traditionally (in the franchise) called
> I have the game (free when I purchased a 980 Ti Hydro)
>and am playing the SINGLE PlAYER game!
"terrorist hunt" (basically like multiplayer with bots), but it
doesn't try to wrap it into any real story or campaign. The bots with
AI are mainly put there for the benefit of co-op terrorist hunt (a key
feature of the last few R6 games), and of course the easiest way to
pull a single player game out of thin air is to simply take the co-op
game and make it solo.. heh
The people bitching about the lack of a campaign are talking about a
REAL single player mode. But, hopefully they will be happy to learn
that Far Cry Primal is single player only.
I actually think the "situations" are pretty fun. I think they really
exist only as a way to get more XP without playing online and act as a
sort of expanded tutorial (i.e. it's one thing to train on the
individual gadgets but its another thing to learn to use them in
practice). But Im spending most of my time in multiplayer.
Rin Stowleigh
Dec 6, 2015, 4:44:06 AM12/6/15
to
On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 09:05:05 +0100, Ned Kelly <ned....@nefkom.net>
wrote:
Heh.. Well it wouldn't be wrong to call it that, but if you have a
menu option that says that you're playing a different game ;)
Usually in the multiplayer shooter space, when someone refers to "lone
wolfing", they just mean entering a server but not really playing as a
team (or in the case of Battlefield games, not joining a squad, etc).
In other words playing in the presence of others but not really as a
team player, kind of just a random guy looking out for number one and
mostly disregarding whatever the team goal is.
Some server admins frown upon it (in games that support dedicated
servers that is -- R6:Siege does not). In games like Battlefield
where there's a lot of players, most of the time nobody minds if you
do it as long as you're not getting in anyone's way. In a game like
R6:Siege which has smaller teams, not making an effort to contribute
to the team goal would be a lot more obvious, although the game design
lends itself to "loose teamwork", at least in Casual mode.
wrote:
menu option that says that you're playing a different game ;)
Usually in the multiplayer shooter space, when someone refers to "lone
wolfing", they just mean entering a server but not really playing as a
team (or in the case of Battlefield games, not joining a squad, etc).
In other words playing in the presence of others but not really as a
team player, kind of just a random guy looking out for number one and
mostly disregarding whatever the team goal is.
Some server admins frown upon it (in games that support dedicated
servers that is -- R6:Siege does not). In games like Battlefield
where there's a lot of players, most of the time nobody minds if you
do it as long as you're not getting in anyone's way. In a game like
R6:Siege which has smaller teams, not making an effort to contribute
to the team goal would be a lot more obvious, although the game design
lends itself to "loose teamwork", at least in Casual mode.
Ned Kelly
Dec 6, 2015, 8:03:00 AM12/6/15
to
Am 06.12.2015 um 10:44 schrieb Rin Stowleigh:
> Heh.. Well it wouldn't be wrong to call it that, but if you have a
> menu option that says that you're playing a different game ;)
In the german version of the game there
> Heh.. Well it wouldn't be wrong to call it that, but if you have a
> menu option that says that you're playing a different game ;)
are three menu options:
-Multiplayer
-Teamplayer (up to 5)
-Einsamer Wolf (Lonely Wolf)
--
Ciao, Ned.
Rin Stowleigh
Dec 6, 2015, 11:25:54 AM12/6/15
to
On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 13:58:21 +0100, Ned Kelly <ned....@nefkom.net>
wrote:
Interesting. Well I stand corrected then, and will consider myself
slightly more informed about region specific design accomodations than
I was a few hours ago.
So if team player is "up to 5", what is multiplayer?
Maybe they specifically wanted to keep the word Terrorist Hunt out of
the menus in Germany for some reason?
I assme Einsamer Wolf is the same thing the US version calls
"Situations"....
wrote:
slightly more informed about region specific design accomodations than
I was a few hours ago.
So if team player is "up to 5", what is multiplayer?
Maybe they specifically wanted to keep the word Terrorist Hunt out of
the menus in Germany for some reason?
I assme Einsamer Wolf is the same thing the US version calls
"Situations"....
Rin Stowleigh
Dec 6, 2015, 11:39:52 AM12/6/15
to
Well, add Mack the Worth a Buy guy to the list of people who are
getting an ass kicking for Christmas, he just gave the best game of
the year a thumbs down. What's worse, he admits it's loads of fun,
just thumbs-downed it because he felt the price point is unfair for a
game without a single player campaign! That douche.. lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zOeec1mpps
Mack claims to have been a skilled multiplayer gamer at one time, but
I detect a strong singleplayer bias in his reviews. Also part of the
reason he might be getting less out of it is he is complaining of
network problems -- rubber banding and lagging, and I honestly have
not seen a single instance of in-game lag, so if he has faith that his
network connectivity is in good health, then it's got to be that the
server in his region is screwy, or some other issue. The US servers
have performed perfectly while in-game. There has been a couple of
times I've seen the "slow load" matchmaking bug that was present in
the beta, but that's about the closest thing to imperfect netcode I've
seen in this game.
Mack is also an idiot of the first order when it comes to knowing
anything about the actual game creation process. I've heard him say
more than once that the reason a single player campaign is not
included is due to "lazy developers". Clearly he's never written a
line of code in his life, because the level of skill and amount of
testing time required for a typical online shooter is over the top
more complex than creating a single player title. There are just too
many more moving parts, and too many unpredictable conditions (network
lag and the dynamics of behavior among multiple humans) to possibly
test everything.
Well, his reviews almost always get a laugh out of me and I will
continue to watch them, but he definitely broke the recent trend of
mirroring my opinion on just about all recent titles.
If he doesn't consider this a good tactical MP game that's as worthy
of the title as previous R6 games, it's time for him to trade in his
boxer shorts for a set of geriatric diapers, because he's really lost
his way.
Oh well. I still tend to agree with him on most of his SP game
reviews.
destruere
Dec 6, 2015, 2:20:33 PM12/6/15
to
On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 11:40:35 -0500, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> Mack is also an idiot of the first order when it comes to knowing
> anything about the actual game creation process. I've heard him say
> more than once that the reason a single player campaign is not included
> is due to "lazy developers". Clearly he's never written a line of code
> in his life, because the level of skill and amount of testing time
> required for a typical online shooter is over the top more complex than
> creating a single player title. There are just too many more moving
> parts, and too many unpredictable conditions (network lag and the
> dynamics of behavior among multiple humans) to possibly test everything.
Most games like this include both components. Going with just multiplayer
> Mack is also an idiot of the first order when it comes to knowing
> anything about the actual game creation process. I've heard him say
> more than once that the reason a single player campaign is not included
> is due to "lazy developers". Clearly he's never written a line of code
> in his life, because the level of skill and amount of testing time
> required for a typical online shooter is over the top more complex than
> creating a single player title. There are just too many more moving
> parts, and too many unpredictable conditions (network lag and the
> dynamics of behavior among multiple humans) to possibly test everything.
lets them avoid doing a story, voice acting and a level progression that
makes sense to that story. Maybe thats what he means?
Tactical MP only games all seem to be generic offices, stairwells and
rooftops. Many are cheap or free, so it really needs to offer more for a
full price game.
-d
Rin Stowleigh
Dec 6, 2015, 2:43:37 PM12/6/15
to
On Sun, 6 Dec 2015 19:18:05 -0000 (UTC), destruere <n...@thanks.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 11:40:35 -0500, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>
>> Mack is also an idiot of the first order when it comes to knowing
>> anything about the actual game creation process. I've heard him say
>> more than once that the reason a single player campaign is not included
>> is due to "lazy developers". Clearly he's never written a line of code
>> in his life, because the level of skill and amount of testing time
>> required for a typical online shooter is over the top more complex than
>> creating a single player title. There are just too many more moving
>> parts, and too many unpredictable conditions (network lag and the
>> dynamics of behavior among multiple humans) to possibly test everything.
>
>Most games like this include both components. Going with just multiplayer
>lets them avoid doing a story, voice acting and a level progression that
>makes sense to that story. Maybe thats what he means?
Perhaps, but it also lets them focus on the multiplayer, which is
where the audience really is in these games. There's only so much
storyline that can be created around defusing bombs and rescuing
hostages. One only needs to turn on the news on the television if
they want lots of drama in this category.
People buy tactical team games for just that -- the tactics and team
play. Why waste development resources trying to come up with a
fabricated soap opera to wrap around it?
>Tactical MP only games all seem to be generic offices, stairwells and
>rooftops.
Well SWAT teams (and equivalent) very rarely go trekking through
jungle environments, the himalayan mountains, the desert, or other
more exotic settings. They are typically breaching buildings. So,
SWAT-like (or spec ops whatever) games tend to be based on indoor
environments where these situations would actually take place.
But, there are still tactical MP games like the Battlefield series
that have large outdoor environments. Actually even FarCry4
competitive multiplayer could be thought of as a tactical team game,
just not with a realism based Tom Clancy-ish theme, and in that one
you're wingsuiting all over Nepal.
>Many are cheap or free, so it really needs to offer more for a
>full price game.
Most of the cheap/free ones suck though. The Rainbow Six series is
held to a higher standard that some of the crappy no-name ones.
Insurgency is an excellent cheap tactical shooter, but the reason it
is cheap is because it's really a source engine mod that was free in
its early incarnations, so trying to turn it into a AAA game at this
point wouldn't make much sense.
wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 11:40:35 -0500, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>
>> Mack is also an idiot of the first order when it comes to knowing
>> anything about the actual game creation process. I've heard him say
>> more than once that the reason a single player campaign is not included
>> is due to "lazy developers". Clearly he's never written a line of code
>> in his life, because the level of skill and amount of testing time
>> required for a typical online shooter is over the top more complex than
>> creating a single player title. There are just too many more moving
>> parts, and too many unpredictable conditions (network lag and the
>> dynamics of behavior among multiple humans) to possibly test everything.
>
>Most games like this include both components. Going with just multiplayer
>lets them avoid doing a story, voice acting and a level progression that
>makes sense to that story. Maybe thats what he means?
where the audience really is in these games. There's only so much
storyline that can be created around defusing bombs and rescuing
hostages. One only needs to turn on the news on the television if
they want lots of drama in this category.
People buy tactical team games for just that -- the tactics and team
play. Why waste development resources trying to come up with a
fabricated soap opera to wrap around it?
>Tactical MP only games all seem to be generic offices, stairwells and
>rooftops.
jungle environments, the himalayan mountains, the desert, or other
more exotic settings. They are typically breaching buildings. So,
SWAT-like (or spec ops whatever) games tend to be based on indoor
environments where these situations would actually take place.
But, there are still tactical MP games like the Battlefield series
that have large outdoor environments. Actually even FarCry4
competitive multiplayer could be thought of as a tactical team game,
just not with a realism based Tom Clancy-ish theme, and in that one
you're wingsuiting all over Nepal.
>Many are cheap or free, so it really needs to offer more for a
>full price game.
held to a higher standard that some of the crappy no-name ones.
Insurgency is an excellent cheap tactical shooter, but the reason it
is cheap is because it's really a source engine mod that was free in
its early incarnations, so trying to turn it into a AAA game at this
point wouldn't make much sense.
Ned Kelly
Dec 7, 2015, 7:41:08 AM12/7/15
to
Menu:
-Situations (practicing tutorial) with
10 parts SP and 1 part MP/TP
-Terrorist Hunt with SP = Lone Wolf
or TP (These are the "campaign" games)
-Multiplayer with Locker (Competition 5 vs 5)
and 2 more various games, 1 level 20 and better
and 1 level 5 and better.
--
Ciao, Ned.
Ned Kelly
Dec 7, 2015, 7:52:03 AM12/7/15
to
Am 07.12.2015 um 05:46 schrieb Leg...@invalid.com:
> My bad...thought I was downloading Seige but got Vegas! Thought the
> graphics were bad lol.
Well, they *are* poor. About the technical state
from 2010 or earlier.
> Got RB6 Siege now and yeah, Lone Wolf ???? No real single player.
What defines a single player?
> Glad i got it for free.
You lucky bastard.
I was waiting a long time for a Rainbow Six
game, so I bought it without waiting for
more infos or a demo.
Now I own a game, which I would give 65/100.
--
Ciao, Ned.
> My bad...thought I was downloading Seige but got Vegas! Thought the
> graphics were bad lol.
Well, they *are* poor. About the technical state
from 2010 or earlier.
> Got RB6 Siege now and yeah, Lone Wolf ???? No real single player.
What defines a single player?
> Glad i got it for free.
You lucky bastard.
I was waiting a long time for a Rainbow Six
game, so I bought it without waiting for
more infos or a demo.
Now I own a game, which I would give 65/100.
--
Ciao, Ned.
Rin Stowleigh
Dec 7, 2015, 10:19:26 AM12/7/15
to
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:47:21 +0100, Ned Kelly <ned....@nefkom.net>
wrote:
>Am 07.12.2015 um 05:46 schrieb Leg...@invalid.com:
>> My bad...thought I was downloading Seige but got Vegas! Thought the
>> graphics were bad lol.
>
>Well, they *are* poor. About the technical state
>from 2010 or earlier.
R6:Vegas (the first game) came out in 2006. It had some very annoying
graphics issues, like bloom that made the screen looked washed out and
could not be turned off.
Vegas 2 was released only about 1.5 years later, and was an excellent
game, although it did have it's share of bugs as well.
>> Got RB6 Siege now and yeah, Lone Wolf ???? No real single player.
>
>What defines a single player?
For purposes of what we are discussing here, most people consider a
single player campaign in a modern FPS game to be a gaming experience
that attempts to create some story or scenario around the gameplay,
and is designed from the ground up to be played solo.
In other words taking a multiplayer game and strategically placing
bots around the map does not count as an SP campaign in most people's
mind. To really see the difference you might fire up something like
the Battlefield series, or another example that comes to mind are the
recent Crysis games. The single player campaign involves a story that
plays very differently than the rounds of multiplayer.
Some of the older R6 games used to have a planning stage where you
could command friendly bots to go to specific spots, engage the enemy,
etc. sort of like a turn based strategy game.
>> Glad i got it for free.
>
>You lucky bastard.
>I was waiting a long time for a Rainbow Six
>game, so I bought it without waiting for
>more infos or a demo.
>Now I own a game, which I would give 65/100.
If you're giving it that based on the single player score, it's really
a statement about what an amazing job they did with this game. They
never intended anyone buy it for the single player experience only. A
6/10 would actually be a great statement in favor of the work they did
on the bots considering it is an afterthought feature of the game.
As a game that's played as it's meant to be, it is easily a 9/10.
wrote:
>Am 07.12.2015 um 05:46 schrieb Leg...@invalid.com:
>> My bad...thought I was downloading Seige but got Vegas! Thought the
>> graphics were bad lol.
>
>Well, they *are* poor. About the technical state
>from 2010 or earlier.
graphics issues, like bloom that made the screen looked washed out and
could not be turned off.
Vegas 2 was released only about 1.5 years later, and was an excellent
game, although it did have it's share of bugs as well.
>> Got RB6 Siege now and yeah, Lone Wolf ???? No real single player.
>
>What defines a single player?
single player campaign in a modern FPS game to be a gaming experience
that attempts to create some story or scenario around the gameplay,
and is designed from the ground up to be played solo.
In other words taking a multiplayer game and strategically placing
bots around the map does not count as an SP campaign in most people's
mind. To really see the difference you might fire up something like
the Battlefield series, or another example that comes to mind are the
recent Crysis games. The single player campaign involves a story that
plays very differently than the rounds of multiplayer.
Some of the older R6 games used to have a planning stage where you
could command friendly bots to go to specific spots, engage the enemy,
etc. sort of like a turn based strategy game.
>> Glad i got it for free.
>
>You lucky bastard.
>I was waiting a long time for a Rainbow Six
>game, so I bought it without waiting for
>more infos or a demo.
>Now I own a game, which I would give 65/100.
a statement about what an amazing job they did with this game. They
never intended anyone buy it for the single player experience only. A
6/10 would actually be a great statement in favor of the work they did
on the bots considering it is an afterthought feature of the game.
As a game that's played as it's meant to be, it is easily a 9/10.
Rin Stowleigh
Dec 7, 2015, 10:19:34 AM12/7/15
to
On Mon, 7 Dec 2015 13:36:26 +0100, Ned Kelly <ned....@nefkom.net>
So I'm more confused now -- where is the "Einsamer Wolf" menu option
you mentioned?
Terrorist Hunt is really not a campaign. You enter a building filled
with bots which are designed to imitate AI. It's kind of like playing
counterstrike with bots instead of humans. It is designed for co-op
play, but of course can be played alone.
you mentioned?
Terrorist Hunt is really not a campaign. You enter a building filled
with bots which are designed to imitate AI. It's kind of like playing
counterstrike with bots instead of humans. It is designed for co-op
play, but of course can be played alone.
Toby Newman
Dec 9, 2015, 4:30:04 AM12/9/15
to
On 2015-12-04, Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't plan to go into too much depth on this game because I am not
> aware of anyone who visits this NG that has an interest in this genre.
> It's a tactical multiplayer shooter, and if you don't like tactical
> multiplayer shooters there's no reason to even consider it. But, I'll
> throw some thoughts out there just for the sake of random passersby
> who stumble upon Usenet postings some other way.
For what it's worth, tactical squad based shooters are one of my
>
> I don't plan to go into too much depth on this game because I am not
> aware of anyone who visits this NG that has an interest in this genre.
> It's a tactical multiplayer shooter, and if you don't like tactical
> multiplayer shooters there's no reason to even consider it. But, I'll
> throw some thoughts out there just for the sake of random passersby
> who stumble upon Usenet postings some other way.
favourite game types.
I'm really excited about Ghost Recon Wildlands.
Siege sounds interesting and I love terrorist-hunt in the previous
games. I do worry about replayability though: How many buildings
(levels) are there?
--
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.
Rin Stowleigh
Dec 9, 2015, 1:35:09 PM12/9/15
to
On Wed, 9 Dec 2015 09:20:46 +0000, Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com>
wrote:
Multiplayer replayability is off the charts, even with the 11 initial
maps in the game. Single player replayability is pretty much
non-existant.
Supposedly Ubi is committed to this game as an "ongoing community",
meaning new content will keep coming. Offers for Season Passes, which
I think they intend to be what they say they are (good for one year)
will also probably keep coming, but Ubi has said they will never
charge more for new maps, and that the season passes will consist only
of cosmetic "fun" items, and XP boosters which enable unlocking new
operators faster (to some, new operators might be as exciting or as
important to replayability as new maps, and in some ways yes they are,
but I don't know how much I would pay just to unlock them faster and I
certainly don't care much about skins or customization. I'm more
likely to pay just to support the game and encourage Ubi to focus more
on this franchise).
The first Season Pass DLC was included with my purchase. No idea why,
maybe my participation in beta or pre-purchase.
I think the ongoing community philosophy is a good one -- at least
they are recognizing that good multiplayer games like this tend to
live on for years without dwindling interest. People bitch about the
options for ongoing income stream, but for a game that uses
peer-to-peer networking authenticated to central matchmaking servers,
(almost all of them nowdays, we have consoles to thank for that),
there is no way to sustain the game long-term unless the company is
getting enough revenue to keep the lights on one way or another, so
its about whether or not the game can stay around a while vs. having
to pay for a new release entirely.
For folks with single player only interest in this game, I'd say pass
on it or wait until it's very cheap -- you just won't get enough out
of the solo options to justify the purchase. For folks with
multiplayer interest, I'd say get involved with it RIGHT NOW, because
currently most new players are playing in Casual mode and working
toward level 20. You cannot enter Ranked games until you are level 20
which will take some hours of play and practice. I predict that in
the future, everyone will be in the locked Ranked mode, and Casual
will become a ghost town, meaning it will get difficult for
matchmaking to even get you into a game, and at that point reaching
level 20 will take so long that new players will never make it into
ranked unless Ubi makes changes to accomodate that sort of thing.
One thing I'll say about the maps though -- the amount of maps isn't
as important as it is in most multiplayer games. At the end of the
day they are all the inside of a building. Doors/windows/stairs etc.
in different places, different decor and details, but in terms of
gameplay it's easy to forget which one you're on because you're so
focused on objectives. Exception is a parked airplane which differs
considerably from the rest. Stuff like the Swiss chalet you'll
quickly forget about the snow on the ground outside because you'll be
inside working on the hostage/bomb/container etc so fast.
wrote:
maps in the game. Single player replayability is pretty much
non-existant.
Supposedly Ubi is committed to this game as an "ongoing community",
meaning new content will keep coming. Offers for Season Passes, which
I think they intend to be what they say they are (good for one year)
will also probably keep coming, but Ubi has said they will never
charge more for new maps, and that the season passes will consist only
of cosmetic "fun" items, and XP boosters which enable unlocking new
operators faster (to some, new operators might be as exciting or as
important to replayability as new maps, and in some ways yes they are,
but I don't know how much I would pay just to unlock them faster and I
certainly don't care much about skins or customization. I'm more
likely to pay just to support the game and encourage Ubi to focus more
on this franchise).
The first Season Pass DLC was included with my purchase. No idea why,
maybe my participation in beta or pre-purchase.
I think the ongoing community philosophy is a good one -- at least
they are recognizing that good multiplayer games like this tend to
live on for years without dwindling interest. People bitch about the
options for ongoing income stream, but for a game that uses
peer-to-peer networking authenticated to central matchmaking servers,
(almost all of them nowdays, we have consoles to thank for that),
there is no way to sustain the game long-term unless the company is
getting enough revenue to keep the lights on one way or another, so
its about whether or not the game can stay around a while vs. having
to pay for a new release entirely.
For folks with single player only interest in this game, I'd say pass
on it or wait until it's very cheap -- you just won't get enough out
of the solo options to justify the purchase. For folks with
multiplayer interest, I'd say get involved with it RIGHT NOW, because
currently most new players are playing in Casual mode and working
toward level 20. You cannot enter Ranked games until you are level 20
which will take some hours of play and practice. I predict that in
the future, everyone will be in the locked Ranked mode, and Casual
will become a ghost town, meaning it will get difficult for
matchmaking to even get you into a game, and at that point reaching
level 20 will take so long that new players will never make it into
ranked unless Ubi makes changes to accomodate that sort of thing.
One thing I'll say about the maps though -- the amount of maps isn't
as important as it is in most multiplayer games. At the end of the
day they are all the inside of a building. Doors/windows/stairs etc.
in different places, different decor and details, but in terms of
gameplay it's easy to forget which one you're on because you're so
focused on objectives. Exception is a parked airplane which differs
considerably from the rest. Stuff like the Swiss chalet you'll
quickly forget about the snow on the ground outside because you'll be
inside working on the hostage/bomb/container etc so fast.
Rin Stowleigh
Dec 9, 2015, 1:41:16 PM12/9/15
to
On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 13:35:11 -0500, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>For folks with single player only interest in this game, I'd say pass
>on it or wait until it's very cheap -- you just won't get enough out
>of the solo options to justify the purchase. For folks with
>multiplayer interest, I'd say get involved with it RIGHT NOW, because
>currently most new players are playing in Casual mode and working
>toward level 20. You cannot enter Ranked games until you are level 20
>which will take some hours of play and practice. I predict that in
>the future, everyone will be in the locked Ranked mode, and Casual
>will become a ghost town, meaning it will get difficult for
>matchmaking to even get you into a game, and at that point reaching
>level 20 will take so long that new players will never make it into
>ranked unless Ubi makes changes to accomodate that sort of thing.
Side note -- for folks who aren't into multiplayer games, the idea of
<rstow...@nevrhadgmail.com> wrote:
>For folks with single player only interest in this game, I'd say pass
>on it or wait until it's very cheap -- you just won't get enough out
>of the solo options to justify the purchase. For folks with
>multiplayer interest, I'd say get involved with it RIGHT NOW, because
>currently most new players are playing in Casual mode and working
>toward level 20. You cannot enter Ranked games until you are level 20
>which will take some hours of play and practice. I predict that in
>the future, everyone will be in the locked Ranked mode, and Casual
>will become a ghost town, meaning it will get difficult for
>matchmaking to even get you into a game, and at that point reaching
>level 20 will take so long that new players will never make it into
>ranked unless Ubi makes changes to accomodate that sort of thing.
having a ranked vs casual mode might sound like one of those things
that is designed to accomodate people who want bragging rights, wag
their e-penis around, etc.
It's not. As far as I can tell, other players can't even see what
level you are.
The purpose in keeping ranked mode locked until level 20 is that it
guarantees that very experienced players are separated from those just
learning the game. This helps prevent noobs from getting crushed as
they are learning the game, and it helps skilled players from getting
their rounds completely ruined by the mistakes noobs inevitably make.
0 new messages