PDA

View Full Version : Only 3 Operatives?



Cpt.Cordalez
04-08-2006, 12:33 PM
As you see in the released pictures, they are only three operatives, or two when it is a 1st person shot (weapon and hands visible).
1 (http://www.demonews.de/galerie/1825/1141667241.jpggr), 2 (http://www.demonews.de/galerie/1825/1141667217.jpggr), All Pictures (http://www.demonews.de/galerie/index.php?spieleid=1825&galerie=show)

The operatives are no longer the known ones, but three new, young persons.
Logan Keller is the leader and recon. Michael Walter is the demolitionist. Jung Park is the specialist for electronics.


I have no problems with having new faces. But only three operatives?

That might be of course the console version only, but it is possible, most likely that the PC version will be the same.

Maybe they are technical reasons (performance), but still three operatives only is the wrong way anyway.

Thump248th
04-08-2006, 01:41 PM
It's the "new and improved" R6.....

Malleus.
04-08-2006, 02:08 PM
Well, since we don't know **** about R6-5 PC, let's just hope it's only in the console version.
Btw, yes, it looks/sounds bad...

RockNRoll777
04-08-2006, 02:36 PM
DUDE! DON'T DO THAT TO US UBI!

I HOPE to heck they don't only make 3 operatives. I want to be able to pick my people like Rogue Spear and Ghost Recon.

Deosl
04-09-2006, 06:06 AM
Last I heard from Ubisoft they were indeed moving away from the "squad-based" type of games like in R6 & GR.

Guess the old games that made the Tom clancy series what it is today isn't what the fans want according to Ubisoft...

KungFu_CIA
04-09-2006, 07:56 AM
Unfortunately, this appears to be true.

I can make an educated guess this is because they keep getting feedback from casual gamers who say things like they never used planning, or never used more than one team on a mission and just liked to jump right in and start shooting stuff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Also, this fits right in with the industry's typical "less is more" approach in it costs less to not develop features players... Casual players... Say the never use. Therefore, this appears to be the design model most "tactical" games are headed, unfortunately.

Defuser
04-09-2006, 08:56 AM
GRAW, the PC version, features a fairly in-depth tactical on-the-fly planning screen. Nowhere near, I wager, the depth of a dedicated planning phase such as the ones we expect from a R6 game, but still it is enough (especially when you consider the Ghosts don't plan their operations in advance to level R6 do due to the completely different nature of the modus operandi).

It would be a phenomenally sad day in the history of R6 when Ghost Recon actually features a more powerful and intuitive planning system than a game that once made its name on it.

KungFu_CIA
04-09-2006, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Defuser:

It would be a phenomenally sad day in the history of R6 when Ghost Recon actually features a more powerful and intuitive planning system than a game that once made its name on it.

Well, break out the black suits and veils because saddly, I predict, this IS the general direction this series and all squad-based shooters are heading for the simple fact (above all else) it is much more cost effective for the devs to concentrate on the features they know people will actually use opposed to features they might use, but probably, 90% of the time will not such as the planning phase.

In addition, the "tactical shooter" genre has a whole new meaning than when it started in 1998.

Tactical now just means a less-forgiving/more realistic damage model and using contemporary weapons and equipment and being set in realistic locations as opposed to other sci-fi, fantasy settings like Unreal Tournament, or Quake.

I feel the emphasis on MP gaming is a big reason why so-called tactics are now nothing but video game tactics (run and frag/shoot/flash/smoke anything that moves) as opposed to trying to mimic real world, CT and CQB tactics in my humble opinion.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this since these are games and not simulators or training tools, but I think the terms "tactical" and "realism" are not accurate terms to use to describe games like R6 and other so-called realism based games in my opinion...

And I think this is relevant to the initial comments about how games are being stripped down/streamlined to be more "pick up and play" as opposed to the earlier versions of R6 -- And even Ghost Recon -- Which required some time to get the hang of before you felt comfortable in the planning phases because most games DON'T emphasize or reward a player for actually THINKING anymore especially, first person shooters. I hate to say it, but R6 is now just about shooting bad guys than actually trying to mimic real CT operations like the original games did.

SAS_Shield
04-09-2006, 01:40 PM
just for the sack of arguement that the gameand future games alike go the way of lockdown, it probably would mean more to instead flood the forums with posts on ourt opinions, but post nothing like we all got up and left. That I think would be a really scary sight, no posts no words they would have nothing to go on.

RAZE_672
04-09-2006, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
Unfortunately, this appears to be true.

I can make an educated guess this is because they keep getting feedback from casual gamers who say things like they never used planning, or never used more than one team on a mission and just liked to jump right in and start shooting stuff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif in survival and tdm matches.

Also, this fits right in with the industry's typical "less is more" approach in it costs less to not develop features players... Casual players... Say the never use. Therefore, this appears to be the design model most "tactical" games are headed, unfortunately.


oh really..? And just what is it "teh oober pros" do online here? Do all the top clans and gamers play objective matches? or do they pride themsleves on just jumping right in and shooting stuff in survival and tdm matches. If the developers decided to do away with mission planning it is from observing and trying to accomodate these mouth-breathing oober tacticians.

Gamers interested in planning typically favor mission play online. I know of only one clan that is devoted to mission play and has servers dedicated to objective games every day. And that's really pathetic for a thinking mans shooter. Pfft! Heck, one can find more skilled objectives matches every day in Medal of Honor. Rifles only anyone?

You can blame the "industry" but it's really you're own fault for playing the way you do.

Cpt.Cordalez
04-09-2006, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by RAZE_672:
And just what is it "teh oober pros" do online here? Do all the top clans and gamers play objective matches? or do they pride themsleves on just jumping right in and shooting stuff in survival and tdm matches.
At least, the online TDMers do not ask for 3 on 3 matches.




Originally posted by RAZE_672:
If the developers decided to do away with mission planning it is from observing and trying to accomodate these mouth-breathing oober tacticians.

Gamers interested in planning typically favor mission play online. I know of only one clan that is devoted to mission play and has servers dedicated to objective games every day.
Funny thing is: Ubi says, that the online forum community here (on these boards) are the online (TDM) players mainly, but they want to hear and support the Single Players aswell.

Now what I see here, is nothing more, than the so called "online TDMers", who post on these boards, yelling for a better planning phase, more teams and units, more tactics and realism in general. Actually all the Single Player aspects as ideal, all what made R6 to what it is and what formed this so called "online TDMer" community.
Instead Ubi "cares" about the Single Players more and made a game called "Lockdown" as a result.

My conclusion is: 70% of this so called "online TDM" player community favours the SP part of R6 as the most highquality aspect in an R6 game. TDM just comes with the package.


I for my part had only few online TDM matches with Rogue Spear. 90% of my playing time was intense and tactical Co-op, which is nothing more than Single Player with "intelligent" team members.

Ubi seriously thinks that who posts on an online board is an online TDMer and Single Players have no internet, or do not use it. http://smilies.vidahost.com/cwm/3dlil/tard.gif

Woosy
04-09-2006, 05:01 PM
The reason why Rainbow Six is called tactical and realistic is because it's believable. It's not 100% accurate to real life but it comes close, apart from a few arcade things but thats because its a computer game. This is what I don't understand about Ubi if this is the way they want to go. As been said how to appeal to the mass audience... Lockdown took away most of the Rainbow Six community, because it was linear lacked tactical planning and mutiple teams.

To get those people back you need to have what the games which "worked" had and thats mutiple teams and planning, you should tell them kungfu in the council thingy thats what people want, they are only kicking themselves in the foot by not adding it. It not only gets back the huge crowd that once was, it attracts new people to the series. If they want to ignore the mistakes from Lockdown, which would be daft they will only alienate, the poor folks here, who are the only hardcore fans left, they can only take so much.

All gamers want these days are Quality made games, which imho are hard to come across. If you're going to skimp and go cheap on features, no one will buy the games. Take note of the great companies making Obvilion and civ4 which are hugely complex and have HUGE tuorials, not many people I know use the tutorial there as it's in-depth and takes about an hour to do but it's there all the same. It feels like they have crammed in as much as humanly possible, and they are worth everyones time and money. Ubi needs to wake up and, figure out you get out what you put in, if not you're going to make the same mistakes of Lockdown. And I personally won't sit around another year or two waiting to find out if they add those features again, i'll find another game.

KungFu_CIA
04-09-2006, 05:45 PM
I think it comes down to what I and others have said before and that is you can make the overall game experience of setting up, installing and running a game (both SP and MP) easier, BUT not at the expense of the core gameplay which made the series successful in the first place.

This isn't rocket science, but it seems to fall on deaf ears as far as UBI is concerned as of late.

A prime example besides Oblivion and Civ4 is the new Tomb Raider: Legend.

The way Lara moves is (now) much easier and more intuitive for "casual" gamers -- Of which I fully admit to being as far as TR games go -- And I for one enjoy the demo much more than I did the previous games because of this crucial aspect which Crystal Dynamics paid close attention to and improved upon. They devs did the same thing with Splinter Cell: Choas Theory, too and I also like this game better than the previous two having played all three.

However, just as you have die-hards and veterans in any gaming communities, the TR ones are now crying Edios "sold out" by making the game more user-friendly and are appealing to the "newbs" and other things we R6 veterans said of Lockdown.

The big difference, however, between LD and TR:Legend is that, in my personal opinion, Crystal Dynamics actually IMPROVED the core gameplay and didn't destroy what made the original games a success in the first place. And actually, a lot more veteran TR fans agree than than the few, vocal "die-hards" who are just resistant to change and are being stubborn, or want something to complain about.

As I said, I don't know where the confusion occurs whenever developers and publishers use the terms ease-of-use and simplify/dumb-down because this is the current issue which faces R6 as a series. I just hope they, UBI, realize what each of these terms really mean (semantic nitpicking aside) and don't just apply them in general terms like they did with LD because we will end up with another Lockdown if they do http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Woosy
04-09-2006, 06:22 PM
Totaly agree with your example of SCCT and TR:L, the games are easier to play now. In early Splinter Cell it was really hard to come behind someone and grab them, it is easier now and not so frustrating, and instead of having a linear mission it's opened up you're not forced to do the entire thing if you don't want to. With Tomb Raider, the puzzles are easier, and it's fun not being so frustrated on a level. Imho this game beats the previous one, not only is she looking more realistic *cough* the storyline is great.. well i think so anyways, previous ones seem to focus on her and sell because she had big boobs and not the gameplay or story, I didn't like that poopy appeal.

To me those games are an improvement over the original and don't destroy the gameplay, I have completed TR:L already on the 360. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif I've had more fun on that then the original, but I do have to say... I do miss locking the butler in the freezer like I could do on the original. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

By the way, Kungfu do you remember the old FAQ for RvS? I remember reading that when they said they tried to make the planning stage easier to use then the old one. I think they do know the difference especially the producer working on the current game from experience, I just hope he puts his experience to good use.

TexasRanger_562
04-09-2006, 08:25 PM
Maybe there are only 3 operatives now, but they will add more later.

Cpt.Cordalez
04-10-2006, 12:44 AM
Each patch one more.

DreamMarine
04-10-2006, 02:27 AM
The planning phase is 30-40% of the whole SP game! It's exactly THIS which makes up the replay value! If you mess up the action phase you have to go back to the planning phase and think it all over. This is a big part of the fun.

I can't feel immersed in a so-called tactical elite HRT game, when there are just 3 men involved - including me.

R6 will definitely loose its "cult status". New players won't be impressed any more when they play it first time. They won't think: "Wow, this is about the real thing. I have to learn what real HRT is about (in a game-like way)".

The CIV series was a very good example: CIV is difficult, very complex... and challenging! But when I played my first sessions I was very impressed and thought: "Hey, with this game I learn a lot about REALITY... now I understand, why managing a state is difficult... you always have to decide for an action which is the lesser evil."

It was the same with R6: "Wow, this game is complex, challenging and very immersive! I had to learn a lot about the REAL thing: Breaching a door the right way - Never let your enemy get in your back - Never assume anything!"

All this appeal of R6 is probably gone with R6:5! It's going to be another POPCORN-GAME! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

DreamMarine


But when one door closes, another one opens. I count on other game developer who have a better feeling for "cult games"!!!

Cpt.Cordalez
04-10-2006, 06:26 AM
What is CIV?

I have a mixed opinion about the planning phase.
The way how the planning phase was made in the previous R6 titles ALL the time is simply not the case in reality, but CAN be possible aswell.

What I mean is, that I want variety in how missions can/have to be completed in an R6 game.

Sometimes you have just an unimportant building, where you are not able to get the map of the building and so the team have an on-the-fly mission. They just get all the few info about how the terrorists are probably armed, what they want and maybe other stuff.

Another mission can be in a warehouse or similar. Thermal imaging showed the hostages beeing in the back part of it, so the team knows where the hostages are, but doesn't know how the building is build up inside, they have to check it out on the fly.

Another mission can be, where it is an embassy, a hotel, or a governmental building, where you can get a map of the building.
Via the little cams the hotages could be located, so the room(s) are known, ALSO the whole building is known, so easily a "most effecient" path can be planned, just not to lose to much time during the mission and clear the rooms in an effecient and fast way.
That would be the R6 planning we are used to.


Maps should not be all the same type, how it was in the R6 games, but more realistic, like you can get the map on paper. You see the paper map on the screen. The hostage location (if known) is marked with a red marker (looks like painted by hand), the planned paths are drawed with a green marker (by hand). Adds more realism.

An embassy can have the map electronic, so you see the screen of a laptop.
The OS have to be some real thing (Win, Mac), or real looking, not some hyper-cyber, pimped up hollywood movie future OS with pointless grids, blinking numbers and alike. I like the simplyfied RS type electronic map.


This kind of variety would bring more tension to the game and make it more realistic looking instead having a perfect "6th sense" mission planning all the time.
You would have "on the fly" missions in some dirty buildings, but also some well planned high-risk missions middle in a city-center.

Variety.

RAZE_672
04-10-2006, 08:02 AM
I completely agree for the need for on-the-fly tactical planning device (following a thorough briefing listing objectives and a detailed map).

What do you think of the "commander mode" tactical planning interface used in bf2? It seems like an effective and efficient way to control the progress of a mission as it unfolds in real gaming time. Instead of having constantly to restart and tinker endlessly with that cumbersome and imprecise planning device in rvs, you could issue commands to everyone during the mission and alter plans on-the-fly when something inevitably goes wrong.

You can still have a pre-game planning phase, but this sort of interface provides one with the flexibility to deal with murphys law once the mission starts.IMO

Woosy
04-10-2006, 11:14 AM
What is CIV?

Civilization IV (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/civilizationiv/index.html?q=civ) is a historic Turn-Based Strategy game, it is very in-depth. For a new gamer to come along and pick it up who has no clue about the prevous game like I did it was mind blowing and felt overwealming. But once you do the tutorial and it explains how to do things the game is easy to play, the game is so complex there is so much you can do. When you make a building, i.e stone henge, you get to see it being made in a cutscene and pretty much every building you can think of in our history from scrath to finish there has to be over 200 cutscenes!! the thing is it's a quality game that most people will buy as it feels polished, no skimping anywhere.

Rainbow Six only has the planning phase in the game which is complex for gamers, they need to change how it works, and make a tutorial showing how to use it and many other aspects of the game properly.



Originally posted by RAZE_672:
What do you think of the "commander mode" tactical planning interface used in bf2? It seems like an effective and efficient way to control the progress of a mission as it unfolds in real gaming time. Instead of having constantly to restart and tinker endlessly with that cumbersome and imprecise planning device in rvs, you could issue commands to everyone during the mission and alter plans on-the-fly when something inevitably goes wrong.

You can still have a pre-game planning phase, but this sort of interface provides one with the flexibility to deal with murphys law once the mission starts.IMO

I wish something like that would added for multiplayer where someone would play control, it's somthing that would be fun in co-op thats for sure, there would be more team work then there is now.

Defuser
04-10-2006, 11:53 AM
Am I having a nightmare? If so, it's not over yet! There is nothing complicated per se about a planning phase. It is how it is implemented that makes for its complexity. Planning can be streamlined to such an extent that it CAN be as powerful as before, just lacking in specification, which for the most part, simply isn't needed. The planning phase as it stands as of RvS, NEEDS the elaborately detailed maps and immaculate intelligence because it in that game it is impossible to modify plans on the fly, and impossible to give AI a more 'general' order and have them carry it out with any degree of intelligence (in fact, the AI in RvS is paper thin at best, god knows how they'd cope without having their hand held). Something as simple as negotiating a corridor is next to impossible for the AI in RvS without being given a cover point beforehand or a set of waypoints. They cannot appraise a situation with any degree of 'intelligence' - this limitation makes planning a chore because you HAVE to give them orders consistent with what you want - which is a successful and fast paced assault.

To that end, you have to make them clear rooms on certain sides, have them move along certain corridors, and not expose themselves in open areas. Things such as these SHOULD be automatic if we want to give the AI some flexibility and make the planning phase simpler. The end result is the same - get across this courtyard, get to this room... But instead of laying a daisy chain of waypoints, the AI does it itself. When you simplify this further, but using 'hotspots' instead of clicking randomly on map, then it becomes even more powerful and intuitive. The key part of recognising how much easier this would be is that you must notice the end results, the assault, is arrived at much quicker without losing any of the functionality - only the most anal of players would miss the ability to specify a crouch walk in a certain area instead of a run where it makes little difference.

It's worth taking a good long look at one of the few threads in which planning has been discussed. The general perception is that the planning phase itself is not something that should be jettisoned as it provides a level of depth and enjoyment over and above the console versions, and it also NEEDN'T be as complex as it is now. With a combination of at least half-way competant AI, and a system of implementation like that of a hotspot system (ANYTHING that isn't putting down masses of waypoints) there's no reason to see it as too complicated or impossible to use effectively.

DTWarrior
04-10-2006, 02:45 PM
http://rainbowsixgame.com/us/lockdown/downloads/r6_sig_1.jpg

I am a huge fan of FPS games but I can honestly without any bit of apprehension state that the reason for this is the immediate positive impression Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear had on me. It was the very first FPS game that I had ever played at that time and I absolutely fell in love with it.

I believe that the main reason why I liked it so much was the replayability value of the entire game and its versatility. I have definitely missed the planning aspect of the game that the developers don't seem to put too much emphasis on anymore. I can still recall spending HOURS UPON HOURS of planning a difficult mission in order to get the results that i wanted on post-briefing. I did not mind goin back and modifying some of the 'red, blue and green waypoints' as well as the 'go codes' that came along with the mission execution. Overall it made for a very immersed experience that was more realistic, albeit not as quickly gratifying but in the end it was well worth every minute of planning spent.

I for one am not very pleased with the direction 'tactical' gaming is headed. I do miss the old-school tidbits of nitpickin the missions. Maybe I am just a minority amongst a majority of other gamers and mayhap my opinion does not sound as audible, but if anyone fr UBI is listening, pls hear that there are other players out there like me who yearn for the old kick-*** gaming stuff fr RS.

I am not giving up hope.... Long days and pleasant nights.

KungFu_CIA
04-10-2006, 04:31 PM
Defuser:

The key element which would make planning much more accessible besides "dumbing down" the interface itself is superior AI... Which, saddly, I fear isn't going to be implemented (in any game) any time soon.

Even though we have no official info. on the PC version of R6:5, I state the following because of a couple of reasons:

1) The AI in most computer games, friendly and foe, is more or less a diversion, or to provide the illusion of "life" compared to the kind of AI a simplified planning system you describe would require.

PC game AI is just not there yet.

Far Cry and F.E.A.R. have good AI, but there has been no AI which (to my knowledge) to date in any squad based, CQB game which can adequately navigate and "think" for itself to the degree a game like R6 (realism) game needs it to be for a planning system like you envision.

Case in point: The AI in Far Cry and F.E.A.R. are based in wide-open enviroments and what they do is more or less what most AI do is and that is zero in on the player and move in to kill him/her. The only thing which makes these two AIs slightly different from other games is they move a lot more and don't just stand out there in the open like a brain-dead zombie waiting to be killed, I.E. Raven Shield Tango AI. Even the F.E.A.R. AI is limited in what it can do even if it is superior to most other games.

Also, movement is only one aspect of better AI. Being able to move (navigate) intelligently within a closed-quater enviroment with lots of rooms, doors, etc. still presents challenges for AI because most AI is not aware of their environment 90% of the time (even if the devs claim they are).

Most AI operate on the principle of following way points or pre-determined nodes/zones on a map... But most of the time these zones/nodes don't (can't) take into account two desks sitting side by side on either side of the node for example which the AI will get caught on because it doesn't "see" the desks.

What an AI "sees" (zones/nodes/waypoints) and what their primary routine prioritizes (kill the player and other enemy AI) are usually the barebones most AI in games is programmed with and that's it... And even this is a lot of work from a coding perspective as any coder could probably tell you.

So, until we get more evolved ("in-depth") AI which does more than "see and hunt" gamers aren't going to be seeing any groundbreaking AI for some time in my opinion.

2) The second reason is also my response to the poster who said the reason all "tactics" are going out of realism based games is more because of the players than the industry...

Well, I admit this is partly true.

The emphasis at this point in time in the games industry, on all platforms, is MP person vs. person competition simply because most game AI isn't a challenge any more for the reasons I listed above.

We have a vicious Catch-22 at work here and while not everybody plays MP, no AI can equal the unpredictability of another live human opponent -- Which is one of the main attractions of MP gaming among other things.

Here is how I personally see things:

If the games industry wants gamers to play a good SP game then they have to deliver a good SP gaming experience... And a major part of this is better AI than most games currently use. And I am specifically speaking about squad-based, CQB games like R6 (versus RPGs and other games). Until this happens I see the SP portions of games getting less and less attention, right or wrong, because of the Catch-22 currently in effect.

Where does that leave us?

I have no idea as we have no official word on R6:5 for the PC in if we at least had some info. that there was a separate division of the dev team working on improving the AI -- like the console versions of Vegas -- We could say things were looking much better as far as the SP portion goes, but since that hasn't happened all we can do is wait and see.

WhiteKnight77
04-10-2006, 05:51 PM
Maybe RSE should give the R6 series to GRIN too. I have heard that the AI in the PC version of GRAW is nothing short of amazing. I am sure GRIN could do wonders with the R6 series.

DreamMarine
04-11-2006, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by DTWarrior:
Maybe I am just a minority amongst a majority of other gamers and mayhap my opinion does not sound as audible, but if anyone fr UBI is listening, pls hear that there are other players out there like me who yearn for the old kick-*** gaming stuff fr RS.


Sometimes I fear the same! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Most movies, games and books get more and more dumb in these days. Many people are loosing their brains step for step. And in the end, they are not capable of more than just running and gunning around.

But I am sure, that even for them this is getting boring after some time... just because it IS boring. Only problem is, that most people in these days are so USED to boredom, that they don't care any more.

There are not many brillant game concepts out there any more. Maybe a handful (in the genres I am playing). Most games get dumbed down in these days. This is particularly true for FPS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Games are more against loneliness and boredom... than for challenge, brain training and learning something. You play once through them, think "wow, what graphics" and that's it. These games have almost no replay value.

I played Call of Duty II a short while ago. This game was SO heavy scripted, I got bored and angry after a short while. I didn't play even half of it. Same with half-life, where they tried to challenge me just by mass of monsters... disgusting! I stopped playing it. Many other games I did not even try because of the reviews they got.


Many countries have a serious education problem in these days. And the style of games, movies and books just mirrors this sad fact. I wished I got to know the guy who decided that dumbness and simpleness is most fun! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

And there is a BIG BIG BIG misunderstanding about complexity of games:
If people think or say: "This feature of a game is too complex or too difficult and therefore frustrating!", the game industry thinks: "Oh, we have to take all those features away. People don't like thinking."

NO NO NO!!! They are just implemented the wrong way! It's like a bad teacher who gives a problem to solve in a confusing and not appelaing way to their pupils. And the pupils say: "I don't like this". And the teacher stops giving them problems to solve instead of questioning himself and his way of 'implementing' his exercises.


But on the other hand I am pretty convinced, that there are still a lot of players out there who love to get challenged! Not only for their reaction and click-speed... but for their brains and teamwork!


DreamMarine

SAS_Shield
04-11-2006, 10:02 AM
to be honest I foudn myself trying to get an old machine working with windows 95 on it to play older games like the king's quest series. I dont care how bad or how good graphics are, if it isnt appealing in mind and gameplay then it just itsnt worth the money to have, except if it was towards a poster.

Malleus.
04-11-2006, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by SAS_Shield:
I dont care how bad or how good graphics are, if it isnt appealing in mind and gameplay then it just itsnt worth the money to have, except if it was towards a poster.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
I thought about making a Win98 partition or something like that to be able play old stuff, but luckily both games I picked can be tweaked to run under XP (Rogue Spear, Command & Conquer). Good gameplay/atmosphere is above everything, and these will be the first things I'll look for in a new R6 title...

Woosy
04-11-2006, 12:55 PM
And there is a BIG BIG BIG misunderstanding about complexity of games:
If people think or say: "This feature of a game is too complex or too difficult and therefore frustrating!", the game industry thinks: "Oh, we have to take all those features away. People don't like thinking."

NO NO NO!!! They are just implemented the wrong way! It's like a bad teacher who gives a problem to solve in a confusing and not appelaing way to their pupils. And the pupils say: "I don't like this". And the teacher stops giving them problems to solve instead of questioning himself and his way of 'implementing' his exercises.


If that was so they would of changed how things worked in Civilisation 4 which is a hugely complex game. What they do is add an in-depth tutorial that explains how things work in the game so the gamer understands. Just like a teachers who would just say do this equation, without showing how to work it out. They first must show how to work it out to give the pupil an idea how to solve the problem. the rest comes down to a learning experience.

The problem with planning isn't just the Ai it's the actual phase itself, alot of people get confused with the "equation" no tutorial to help them so they either skip it or use the premade plan, everyone who's played the previous Rainbow Six games knows how it works so it's not complex or new to them. I think what you need to realise not everyone is a good as you, for people who haven't played the game before or know how it works they have a face that looks like a slapped arse. When my friends attempted it, frustration set in and it's only time before they hit skip, so you would only be half right with the AI it's the actual phase too.

Malleus.
04-11-2006, 01:08 PM
Woosy, if you want to say that there should be a very detailed tutorial about the planning phase, then I agree. What I don't agree with is that the planning phase should be simplified or taken away because people aren't patient enough to learn it. There's already an option to skip the planning or use a default plan, now there should be something that helps newcomers get in to it. Because planning is fun ... at least IMO.

Woosy
04-11-2006, 01:56 PM
Yes, there should be a detailed tutorial on the planning phase, for new people to get in to it, because how it is most folk haven't got a clue how it works, so skip it... Then you have the type who look at it and think.. hmm too complex and don't use it at all, and it seems like a useless feature. They need make a better user interface which is highly detailed and labeled better, the original one seemed better, and a huge tutorial that covers that phase.

RAZE_672
04-11-2006, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
Maybe RSE should give the R6 series to GRIN too. I have heard that the AI in the PC version of GRAW is nothing short of amazing. I am sure GRIN could do wonders with the R6 series.

I took back my preorder money at gamestop for lockdown :yoink: and placed it on GRAW for pc.
I hope you're right or else I'll be forced to buy bf2 2141 when it comes out for my futuristic military fix.

DreamMarine
04-12-2006, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by Woosy:
Yes, there should be a detailed tutorial on the planning phase, for new people to get in to it, because how it is most folk haven't got a clue how it works, so skip it... Then you have the type who look at it and think.. hmm too complex and don't use it at all, and it seems like a useless feature. They need make a better user interface which is highly detailed and labeled better, the original one seemed better, and a huge tutorial that covers that phase.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif


I totally agree. They have to find a way to introduce new R6 players gradually into the gameplay of R6.

Even "R6 veterans" would benefit from a very well done tutorial. Such a tutorial could teach step for step how it would be done in "reality".

I am sure that most of us are eager to learn all the tricks in planning such a mission. The same with the action phase, where a well done training with following grading would motivate the players to learn step by step to get better and more and more "professional" in rescuing hostages.

Exactly THAT is the theme of R6!!! That's what I expect from R6:5!!!


When I shut down the game, I want to think to myself: "Wow, I did a great job in rescuing those poor people!"


DreamMarine

FinPEP
04-12-2006, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by Woosy:
...everyone who's played the previous Rainbow Six games knows how it works so it's not complex or new to them.

But even we have been new to the series at some point, with no previous experience from the planning phase.


I think what you need to realise not everyone is a good as you, for people who haven't played the game before or know how it works they have a face that looks like a slapped arse.

Even at the risk of sounding cocky and ignorant, how hard can it be?

I personally became acquainted with the series back in '98. Being eleven years old, with a little more than a year of elementary English, I had no difficulty with the mission planner. Add to that, before R6 I hadn't even thought that the mouse could be used in games.

I seriously doubt any potential customer for the Rainbow Six franchise - not including Lockdown - would acknowledge an eleven year old kid, inexperienced in English being on better basis to draw lines on a blueprint.

To draw some kind of a conclusion, while I have nothing against a tutorial covering the planning phase, I doubt it would make any difference. Anyone willing to form and execute a plan should be capable of doing so with the planner as it is, while a person not interested in planning will probably skip the phase regardless of the tutorial provided.

Woosy
04-12-2006, 06:12 AM
I Put someone on the game who has never played it, didn't say anything to them at all, and watched them, and they get mcfuddled. I did with my friends on Raven Shield and they where like what the hell? All they could figure out was to set waypoints, first thing they said "where are all the options?" they didn't know how to change RoE throw flash bangs go codes etc.. And all it would of taken was a right click to acess that menu, suffice to say they found it frustrating. *lol* I tried to get some of my friends to play the game as I've said quite a few times on here, most of whom skip the planning phase because they don't have a clue how to work it, so they go solo and use their men as extra lives, I will say no no and they will say what am I doing wrong then?

If it's so easy why do so many people get it wrong or skip the phase like my friends? I have about 30 friends offline, who I have tried to get them to try over a 3 week period. Anyone can draw the waypoints, it's the actual planner thats the problem!! I have seen my friends on Oil Refinery put the operatives staight in front of the trains on the planner as they come off the steps thinking that "oh they must cover their angles automaticaly" as there no option for that instead their entire team gets wiped out and they think hmmpf. Try again and again and skip it because frustration sets in.

It could be made easier to understand and more detailed instead of how it is already, after explaining to them how to do things, they even said I would of never of known that if you wasn't here. So as I say folks who have played the game back in 1998 who know how it works are alright jacks, for new people they are like "I don't understand this, what does this do?, will he throw the flash bang in the air? how far?" And even I don't have an answer for that, and they will be "ok then"

*lol* There have been times where they have done an alright plan, but because there isn't a play through option like the original which would go from the start way point to the end and show what would happen, things get assumed and the things that happen in lockdown. Grenades off walls happen with them, because there is nothing to judge from, no huge round circle on the planner saying this is the kill radious of one of these things so their men die, its a frustrating experience, I laugh they cry.

It can't even be explained with words I think I should film them and put them on here and you would laugh as hard as I do, but in all seriousness, a tutorial would help alot and it being in-depth too. When gamers are left to assume even on the demo which has no manual you know something is very wrong with it. Even people who I have made friends on Raven Shield online don't use it for the same reasons, apart from my friend Raven, they all have the same fault with it, where are the options can't judge from the map whats going to happen.

DreamMarine
04-12-2006, 06:57 AM
As I said before. The planning phase is not too difficult per se!

It's the way it was implemented in the previous R6 games. The planning phase in RvS was much better than in R6 and RS, but it still suffered from an intricate handling. The waypoint system, for example, did not work very well.

So in my opinion, the planning phase of R6:5 needs both: It has to get polished up... and a real good tutorial would be a great step forward!

DreamMarine

WhiteKnight77
04-12-2006, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by RAZE_672:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
Maybe RSE should give the R6 series to GRIN too. I have heard that the AI in the PC version of GRAW is nothing short of amazing. I am sure GRIN could do wonders with the R6 series.

I took back my preorder money at gamestop for lockdown :yoink: and placed it on GRAW for pc.
I hope you're right or else I'll be forced to buy bf2 2141 when it comes out for my futuristic military fix. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you seen the new video with Bo? While he talks, there are gameplay shots by a gamer (not a dev) with the AI doing some really cool stuff.

KungFu_CIA
04-12-2006, 07:42 AM
In discussing the planning phase in Raven Shield, and Raven Shield in particular we have to acknowledge two things:

1) The SP portion of the game is severely unbalanced out-of-the-box.

The Tangos have inhuman attributes and the R6 AI is dumb as rocks. Right there is a huge disadvantage and what FORCES most people to skip the planning phase and just jump right in and "run-and-gun" after they finally realize this after a couple of play throughs.

This imbalance is also why most people skip SP altogether and go for MP where it is more "balanced" in terms of their opponents making actual mistakes because they are human and not AI bots with superhuman auto-aim.

2) The actual planning phase and interface could be simplified like most of us are saying... But then we get the Catch-22 of not having a lot of in-depth options veterans players want and need which used to define R6 from the multitude of other games on the market.

Woosy argues it isn't complex game concepts that are the problem but teaching players how to use those concepts. Well, then this is where the tutorials would come in as has been suggested by all.

However, I will counter-argue people who are going to skip the planning phase are going to do so regardless of how well the interface is done and regardless of their understanding of the process.

Also, most people skip the planning phase because most games just do not require people to think that much anymore. Especially, FPS which R6 falls into.

Civ4 and other games that require more in-depth concepts and tactics automatically ASSUME the player WANTS to think and has a basic understanding of the kind of game they are playing (RTS; RPG; etc.). FPS are unfortunately no longer "thinking man's" games (as if they ever were?) if we are going to be brutally honest.

This is precisely why I said most tactics people use in games like R6 in the MP -- and SP portion to some degree -- Are MP tactics learned from other video games.

A clear indication of this is when Pandemic Studios was designing Full Spectrum Warroir for the retail market after having done it for the U.S. Military.

The big differences when going from the Army version to the retail was more visual cues -- Because gamers are used to having 90% of their info. conveyed to them visually via HUDs -- And not aurally like real soldiers are trianed to listen for...

And two, they knew most gamers use video game tactics when playing video games as opposed to real world military fire-and-movement tactics the core audience for the Army version already knows and would use.

For example, most FPS encourage players to run TOWARD enemies because the player can take multiple hits and still be alive. Most FPS games arsenal is designed to fill a specific need, I.E. the BFG in Doom is specifically for taking out the big Boss monsters at the end of the levels. In the real world, the Army has no "BFG" and fire teams only cary the M4, M249, M203 and M16A2. That's it.

The point here is while video games are first and foremost a form of recreation... There still needs to be a degree of thinking put back into them in my humble opinion. Especially, FPS and R6 in particular because while there is nothing wrong with a game like Quake or UT... Almost every single game on the market is a Quake or UT clone (with pretentions at realism like Counter-Strike) and this just gets boring and reptitive after a while and why R6 was such a fun and unique experience when it came on the scene back in '98.

DreamMarine
04-13-2006, 05:30 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

spm1138
04-16-2006, 09:40 PM
The Tangos have inhuman attributes and the R6 AI is dumb as rocks. Right there is a huge disadvantage and what FORCES most people to skip the planning phase and just jump right in and "run-and-gun" after they finally realize this after a couple of play throughs.

This imbalance is also why most people skip SP altogether and go for MP where it is more "balanced" in terms of their opponents making actual mistakes because they are human and not AI bots with superhuman auto-aim.

Quoted For Truth.

If the planning phase is going to be anything other than pointless the Rainbow AI needs to improve a LOT.

They need to cover angles automatically. This doesn't need to be some vastly complicated heuristic neural net thing, just whack different kinds of nodes down in doors out of "hostile" areas and give the team some memory as to where you have cleared (for example).

First To Fight's AI really wasn't hugely complicated but the team could cover 360 degrees all by themselves so they ended up being much less annoying. Even Metal Gear Solid 2 (a console game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif) managed to do a reasonably convincing imitation of this and I'm certain that on PS2 they didn't have that many CPU cycles to spare for super complicated AI.

The other really big thing that needs to happen is that the terrorist AI involved in room clearing needs to be more than a simple timer counting down ms it's time to shoot at the team.

Shock, panic, fear, stress, or the appearance thereof...

Ho-hum.

I don't see why any of this stuff has to be at the expense of accessibility.