View Full Version : The real R6 feeling!

03-21-2006, 03:22 AM
I think one important point about R6 which got a raw deal up to now is the question:

<span class="ev_code_RED">How do you feel about R6?</span>

I am sure that this emotional perspective is among the most important points we could express to UBI.

I am a big big fan of books and movies about elite troups... dressed in black battle dresses... masks... They are a kind of "cavalry" of our modern times. They are the good one who save the weak and defenseless. They are scary, highly professional and heroical at the same time. They suddenly appear in a blending flash from nowhere and pour death on those who deserve it in seconds. Then they disappear... leaving behind some shocked and deeply grateful hostages who will never forget about them.

They are the good ones! They win by teamwork, professionalism and courage. They are called when nobody else has the heart to do the job... or simply is not distantly capable to do the job. Human lves lie in their hands... men, women, children who they are the last chance for life to... who pray for the help of these ghostly fighters.

It's about training and planning! It's about responsibility! Sometimes it's about stealth... other times about lightspeed with shock and awe. And it's about teamwork! Ah well... and it's about HEROS! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ok, i admit, that this is a bit much solemn. But actually that's the way I feel about this theme. And that's the way I feel (or WANT to feel) about Rainbow Six!

A game is about fun and phantasy. About emotions! And I believe that R6 should deliver exactly this kind of emotions to its fans! (At least in SP)

Actually, I don't know many genres or games that are able to raise this kind of deep feelings. Maybe a kind of Top Gun simulator or some RPG. But most games are "only" about fun. Fun often gets lost after a while. But it's different with deep feelings about a game: They might last a lifetime! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Of course, it must be still fun, since after all it's a GAME. Training must be fun! Planning must be fun! Several tries to find the best way to free the hostages must be fun! So R6 should not try to be the real thing. BUT it should give me the FEELING that I am a part of the REAL THING!!!

I am sure that this is exactly one reason why R6 fans all around the world were so deeply disgusted about Lockdown. LD destroyed this feeling of immersion and heroic and professional phantasies. I mean: Show me a little boy or even a "big boy" who does not dream about beeing a fireman, a pilot or a R6 member! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But now it's your turn! How do YOU feel about Rainbow Six?


03-21-2006, 06:36 AM
One of the things I find fascinating about special forces is that they are a world away from my own life. I could never pick up a gun and shoot someone, and I'm fairly confident that all the training in the world wouldn't make a difference to that fact. Instead, I admire the special forces not for their capacity to kill but instead their professionalism and military detachment from an emotive situation.

It takes a greater man than I to subject themselves to hours upon hours of rigorous physical and mental training. It takes a greater man than I to get down to a fine art room clearing and putting a couple of bullets within a 2 inch hole in a target's forehead. They're heroes alright, but they don't milk it, and the majority of them go without recognition. They do their work for the love of the service and the knowledge that they are the best of best.

To see black-clad operators moving out in figures four is a sight to behold - the tight grip on their movements, every step and every gesture performed with razor-sharp precision from hours and hours of drills and practice. It is this devotion to professionalism that I find so impressive and, at the same time, frightening about special forces. Special forces, contrary to popular opinion, are not 6'7" hulking man beasts - they are the grey men, fit, but not overly musclebound. They're the quiet amiable blokes that do not make an effort to show you they're the best until when it counts. They're frightening because they are utter professionals, but also admirable for that very same trait. It's a paradox, one I find endlessly fascinating.

The world of tactics and their practical application fascinates me just as much. There are well-versed techniques on display when a counter-terrorist team moves in - strategies proven time and time again to be effective and instrumental in the victory of the operators. The capacity for the special forces to enact these plans with deadly efficiency, and the strategic thought processes and challenges presented by a hostage situation are what I find provides the Rainbow Six feeling I believe you are trying to capture.

Rainbow Six, for me, is being a part of the perfect plan and executing it with perfect efficiency. You cannot seperate the tactics and strategy from the shooting because they are interdependent. It is the mixture of the two that makes R6, for me, what it is.

03-21-2006, 06:45 AM

03-21-2006, 07:50 AM
Well spoken, Defuser, well spoken! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

03-21-2006, 08:03 AM
I already answered this question on the Vegas forums, but I'll do it here and add to what I already posted:

1) The big thing the R6 games do right and why I prefer them to most other games is they have the ability to actually make the player fear for his/her virtual life at certain times.

This is done through the less forgiving damage model and other things we associate with R6, so I am not going to go into detail about those.

I will say, however, R6 is the only series in my personal opinion to give me a genuine fear and adrenaline rush whenever I play it. Not even horror survival games like Silent Hill, or Doom-type games give me this kind of feeling and I think this is one aspect which is VERY important and defines R6 because most other games do not emphasize this because of the kinds of games they are.

In other games, there is no sense of fear because you know you can take 50 hits and still move on and because you also know where the enemy is 90% of the time and it is just a matter of taking them out before they take you out. In R6, in SP, there is a sense of unpredictability because even if you do extensive planning, something always goes wrong and the fact planning is only in the general sense as you know where hostages are being held -- but not exactly -- And there may be Tangos in this section of the building -- But not how many, or how they will react. It is this tension and unpredicable gameply most arcade games forego in favor of a shoot'em up fest ala Lockdown which gets boring and repetitive after a while...

Unlike R6 which is always unpredictable, even in SP, because of randomized Tango spawns and other elements the series helped pioneer long before most recent games started to use these techniques as well.

The MP portion, both adverserial and CO-OP is the same way... But even better because there is even more a sense of reality and satisfaction when you do well in a round-based/one life per round setting against other live human beings as opposed to a constant instantaneous respawn enviroment where once again, all fear and even unpredictability is taken away in favor of "faster" or "more balanced" gameplay.

2) Speaking about R6 from a purely psychological point of view...

I agree with Defuser that Special Forces Counter-Terrorism operatives are like modern day mideval "Knights of the Round Table" with this heir of both mystery and danger about them that is very attractive for the layman -- myself included.

Like some, I have only fired various weapons on a firing range which is vastly diffrent from a live operation where people are shooting back at you with the intent to kill you. I can't imagine being in this situation and while we all like to think we'd "rise to the occassion", more often than not a lot of us would be that character in most war movies who freezes under fire and cowers in a fox hole as rounds whiz all around him, ala Private Uppman in "Saving Private Ryan"...

But as Defuser said, this is the whole point of why we play games: Wish and Fantasy Fullfillment. To be able to do things we never could, or even want to do (in the strictest sense) in real life.

I also think R6 should is the most relatable franchise of all the realism based games simply because of 9/11, and the state the real world is in with the threat of global terrorism now a widespread and open threat -- As opposed to mostly lurking in the shadows before and never striking blows as large as 9/11, the Madrid train bombings and 7/7, in London.

As corny and cliche as this sounds, the post-Cold War era has spawned a new enemy... And this new enemy isn't like previous enemies where we know exactly where they are and can just go drop a bomb on them like in WWII and past global conflicts. This new enemy is literally all over the world and operates almost anywhere and anytime and then just disappears into the shadows. This enemy includes all kinds of terrorism like domestic Militia groups (U.S.) religious cults, and rogue persons like Timothy McVeigh and not just Muslim and Islamic extremists and the big factor which should make all of this more relevant to R6 is R6's emphasis on CQB as this is how we are fighting this new enemy (versus large scale military operations like Iraqi Freedom) because this is the enviroment this new enemy operates under, primarily.

Terrorists aren't going to amass a huge army and start paradropping out of the sky like Hollywood would have you believe. They may be living next door and it is the highly trained Special Forces and SWAT Operators whose job it is to go into an urban situation like this, take out the bad guys and minimize any loss of life to the surrounding civilian population and then disappear into their own shadows to continue the fight.

Basically, if the Army and Marines are considered the sledge hammer of the military world... Rainbow and the Special Forces of the world should be considered the finely tuned scalpel which is often needed more these days because of the factors stated above about how and where this new enemy operates.

03-21-2006, 09:15 AM
for me this game was always about the thrill of victory, even more in multiplayer when it was agains real live thinking enemy...

Yen Lo
03-21-2006, 09:20 AM
I agree KF. The only dangerous terrorist is the one living "down the street" from you right now( aka Arlington Road).
R6 will live forever on my HD's, whether Ubi can ever bring itself to make another one anyone wants to play or not. Some, like me, still come here because I loved the OG R6's that much.

04-01-2006, 08:52 AM
I agree with the first and second post on this topic, thats how I also feel about R6. Also, if it has not been mentioned, the soldiers of r6 team should not have personal feelings when on a mission.I mean:"this time its personal", quoted from Lockdown..It cant get further away from what ppl feel about R6 then that.A proffesional operative like the ones in R6 never lets it get personal.Its never about "me", its about "us"-the team working together and get the job done as professional as possible.When on a mission, the persons(operatives) does not exist as individuals.They are only tools used together to complete a mission.They dont have time for feelings, or the time to let things get personal.They dont even think about why they got this and that mission (politics).They do as told in a best manner as humanly possible.Only strategy and teamwork ocupies theire minds when on a mission.Go in, neutralize, rescue, get out...Only a few ppl really knows about the R6 team true identity.For them, its an important job, and honour to be a part of. But they never question theyre orders, and never ever let things get "personal".

04-01-2006, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Kaggis:
I agree with the first and second post on this topic, thats how I also feel about R6. Also, if it has not been mentioned, the soldiers of r6 team should not have personal feelings when on a mission.I mean:"this time its personal", quoted from Lockdown..It cant get further away from what ppl feel about R6 then that.A proffesional operative like the ones in R6 never lets it get personal.Its never about "me", its about "us"-the team working together and get the job done as professional as possible.When on a mission, the persons(operatives) does not exist as individuals.They are only tools used together to complete a mission.They dont have time for feelings, or the time to let things get personal.They dont even think about why they got this and that mission (politics).They do as told in a best manner as humanly possible.Only strategy and teamwork ocupies theire minds when on a mission.Go in, neutralize, rescue, get out...Only a few ppl really knows about the R6 team true identity.For them, its an important job, and honour to be a part of. But they never question theyre orders, and never ever let things get "personal".

Unfortunately, this is why I think UBI is so determined to make the series "more appealing" by adding "characterization" to R6 because to the uneducated masses, soldiers are nothing more than cliched stereotypes from bad Hollywood movies like The quiet, religious guy; the class-clown/joker; the gun-nut; The Good'ol Boy from the south; The oversexed ladies man; The coward/nerd who is only there because he has no choice; etc, etc.

Basically, take every cliched archetype from every movie about a platoon of soliders like Saving Private Ryan, or Tears of the Sun and this is what most people's impression of a "Special Forces" soldier is unless they know someone who is actually in the SF, or have been one themselves.

The sad truth is most mainstream audiences who UBI is trying to appeal to don't want a realistic portrayl. They want a Hollywood, cliched portrayl because this is what they have been conditioned to like and expect out of games like R6 which feature elite special forces.

04-03-2006, 09:55 AM
Well put, everyone. I too feel that the R6 series as of late has not portrayed these men as accurately as they should have been (or deserve to have been). I also feel that the R6 series as of late has gone toward portraying CT/SF units as nothing more than overglorified SWAT teams (which is not in any way a slight to SWAT offficers). And, unfortunately, most people don't think much more of CT units. The reality is, though, that these men are trained and ready to fight anywhere at anytime - be it in a city, on a ship, anywhere - they will fight, and even if odds are against them, they will succeed.

04-04-2006, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
The sad truth is most mainstream audiences who UBI is trying to appeal to don't want a realistic portrayl. They want a Hollywood, cliched portrayl because this is what they have been conditioned to like and expect out of games like R6 which feature elite special forces.

And they couldn't be any more wrong!!!

The book "Rainbow Six" is a WORLD BESTSELLER. The readers and Clancy fans all around the world will agree that it's a "Top 10 forever" book. And it's definitly NOT Hollywood-like as pointed out.

Of course, it's STILL not the reality. BUT it gives you enough depth, professionalism and plausibility that everybody can BELIEVE it's real. Most little boys - and many grown up men - will fantasize to be John Clark or Ding Chavez from time to time. (I don't know about the fantasies of women who have read Rainbow Six - but I would be interested to hear about that! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Most movies (and books) are nice entertainment for some hours, and that's it. But Clancy is a master of immersion and thrill. And I always had the impression that I "learn" something from his books. But, it's a shame that the best times of Clancy books have gone years ago.

The original game R6 has captured the brilliancy of Clancy books like "Rainbow Six", "Without Remorse" and so on.

Now I deeply hope, that the R6 game series won't suffer the same fate as the book series!!! Please, please, pleeeeaaaaase! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif


04-04-2006, 05:52 AM
The Chars in the game do need development, because as they are they are just boring. Ding Chavez, doesn't rock my boat because hes standard, no personality, he just shoots people I couldn't care if his teams lives or dies in the 1st 2nd or 3rd game, there is no reason to. Sam Fisher is a sex god, Ding Chavez take note. That guy has compassion, dry humor and a real dark heart, great looks and most of all a personality!! He a complex man it's why tons and tons of Girls love Sam Fisher. Ding Chavez I have not got the slightest clue about, or the rest of the team, which makes them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif.

As I've said there should be two modes on Rainbow Six story and just normal, where by people can learn who the team are, their little bio is not enough to get a sence of who they really are. In SCCT they showed Sam Fisher in cut scenes and you got to know more and more about him, and his team which are like a family, the Splinter Cell books are just as good but do it in the game too, so why not R6?

I know that Special Forces operatives arn't mean't to have any feeling and do the job at hand with total aggression, but they arn't on ops every second what do they do in their spare time, some writer should watch the Tv Series Ultimate Force seriously, it blows away rainbow Six. Films like Black Hawk Down make me cry because of the reality of it, and hey those guys where heros, then you Have Bravo two Zero, those guys are the exact same, those movies are based on true events, each person had a char that you can talk about, they arn't 1 dimensional or boring.

Films like Tears of the Sun was ace, it opened alot of peoples eyes on the ethnic clensing and genocide that was going on, there was a bigger picture to that story, and it was great to have some emotion, that movie made me cry also at the end, at the end of the day it's just a movie and like a game it's just a game, making the chars 1d is plain, and I don't mean adding personality like Lockdown, where raymond is chapping at my butt about getting my rear over to her position I mean proper char development.

Or we could put Sam Fisher as teamleader and bring the rest of his team minus Lambert, who pretty much everyone knows, kit them up and it would rock, everyone knows who is who and it would have personality to it.

04-04-2006, 11:57 AM
No, the characters doesnt need any development.I couldt care less who Ding Chavez sleeps with when he is not on a mission.Or if his favourite colour is blue.And I dont care if he likes Mcdonalds better then Burgerking. I only care about the tactics and the actual action which takes place in the game. How sad I will become the day I see Chavez making a joke before breaching a door.Thats the time I will definetly stop playing R6.

04-04-2006, 11:59 AM
I heard somewhere that in one console game that clark left? This cant happen and he should be brought back as he is a big part of rainbow and to have him missing and someone else in charge just wouldnt feel the same.

Woosy the only way to get a good idea of what Ding is like is to watch the movie "Clear and Present Danger." that was clark and ding's first big screen appearance and you can get a small idea of what he is like.

04-04-2006, 12:17 PM
In "Critical Hour" John Clark is retiring, therefore Ding is stepping up to take over for Clark. In a way they both retire, but when you think of the timeline it's kinda time they age and move on.
For better or worse, I dunno yet...

Hence the new blood in Vegas & Ding making a cameo appearence in Vegas.

04-04-2006, 12:23 PM
Or you could just read the books with mr Chavez http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I agree though, I don't really care about their personal life. And having to give cutscenes with all the characters would eliminate the ability to choose your team...
Sam Fisher has his own story and the game is all about him. Rainbow is a team of soldiers and the game is about the team, not about who the single operator is under the helmet.

04-04-2006, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Kaggis:
No, the characters doesnt need any development.I couldt care less who Ding Chavez sleeps with when he is not on a mission.Or if his favourite colour is blue.And I dont care if he likes Mcdonalds better then Burgerking. I only care about the tactics and the actual action which takes place in the game. How sad I will become the day I see Chavez making a joke before breaching a door.Thats the time I will definetly stop playing R6.

I think you have the wrong Idea, they could show a cutscene of the briefing with john clark there explaining to the team whats happened, and the inteligence officer talking etc and the team asking questions jotting down notes, and their attitudes towards the mission etc. Thats where you can get an understanding who they are, and how their attitudes are, if it's a cqb mission or a desert mission. Or them boarding a ship, not doing somthing like that makes them just robots pretty much. Thats a bit over the top with the mcdonalds thing, and the jokes in game before breaching. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I said I would prefer proper char development not cheap ones in-game like my Raymond example. It shows there is no Char development in any of them, i can talk at work with work mates and customers about splinter cell and they know who sam fisher is, they know gordon freeman and master chief, if i talk about Ding or John clark they have never heard of them, my nephew knows who he is, as he say's my bossy team mates tell me take them down ding, your shot ding, thats after playing RB6-3 that is not char development it's flipping annoying.

Originally posted by SAS_Shield:
Woosy the only way to get a good idea of what Ding is like is to watch the movie "Clear and Present Danger." that was clark and ding's first big screen appearance and you can get a small idea of what he is like.

Thankyou, I will look out for the film online and see if i can order it somtime this week.

04-04-2006, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by Raven_BROz:
Or you could just read the books with mr Chavez http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I agree though, I don't really care about their personal life. And having to give cutscenes with all the characters would eliminate the ability to choose your team...
Sam Fisher has his own story and the game is all about him. Rainbow is a team of soldiers and the game is about the team, not about who the single operator is under the helmet.

It's not just about him, it's his team aswell, thats grim, redding, lambert and himself and you get to know about them, without them he is useless. There is no personal life in SCCT, only in SCDA when his daughter gets killed. From the first game to the third you learn a great deal most from cutscenes not in-game gameplay.

Rainbow Six is the only game I know with a story that doesn't do it, which is a shame, as I say, why would anyone care about a person in game that you know nothing about? They tried it kinda in Raven Shield on mountain highway, with the woman going up to the operative and thanking him, yet he didn't say nothing, robot man, so rude. There is just no personality there, not even you're welcome. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I guess I'm asking for too much from this game, but it makes me play though the missions easier, because a man down i'm not too fussed about. Where If I knew him I would redo it again and again so he could get to the next level but there isn't a need to, as the reserve guys look like the first team and do just a good a job if not better.

04-04-2006, 02:54 PM
I think most R6 fans want good gameplay rather than (pointless) characterization if we are going to be blunt.

The irony is R6 was based on a best-selling novel... But the game evolved BEYOND the novel into its own entity where gamers DON'T need characterization to enjoy it because of the unique identity it created for itself as a game.

You may enjoy it more if there is more background to the characters... But I think a majority of R6 players just want a good game that retains some of the qualities the original games like R6 and RS brought to the first person shooter genre such as a more realistic damage model and other things which defined the R6 series as being "tactical".

Is characterization important in games?

I think this depends on the particular game.

In one-person centered games like Half-Life, SC and Tomb Raider, I definitely think it is more important because the focus is on the central character... But again, this is NOT what R6 was ever really about. It was about a team of operatives and their associates (Clark; Sweeney; Stanley; et al.) and beyond that, the gameplay itself carved out a whole new niche where characterization really isn't that important in my opinion as long as the gameplay was unique and special...

Which is what R6 used to be. Now, I fear/feel UBI is going the exact opposite direction to where the gameplay is being simplified and homogonized to be like every other first person shooter on the market at the expense of gameplay in order to facilitate stereotypical, cheesy "characterizations" like we got in Lockdown.

This is why I think most R6 fans could care less about "characterization" because they don't trust the devs to deliver more professional, adult-level characterizations which depict who these men and women of the special forces really are... Even if it is a fictional view of them as the R6 books are.

04-04-2006, 04:26 PM
Most R6 gamers looking back pre-Lockdown couldn't care about singleplayer only Multiplayer. It's sad that simple things please simple minds, I LOVE to be immersed in to a computer game, not only in game dynamics, story, but charcters too, without them the game is just standard. I played RvS singleplayer once and thats it other gamesa I've played 10-12 times over.

It's one reason why SWAT4 got so boring so fast for me and is collecting dust. There was no story there was no characters. It was the same thing different map. I think that addon they brought out has a storyline, but I'm not paying for it.

Kungfu, for Rainbow Six to appeal it's not just game dynamics, it's story and characters to appeal to a wider audience. Here is why when I have friends over for gaming and try to get them to play Rainbow Six games. Mainly Raven Shield they will see the intro and go oooh cool this game looks good. So they will start it up go to the briefing screen listern to it all and get really engrosed into it until they get to the roster screen where they will be like this... Ding who is he? Is he anygood? What about this guy and so on and so on, and once they complete a map losing men which they really don't care about because there is no real connection with the player they will carry on. It gets boring fast for them, one because no one sticks out as a team member they are just expendable to them, once they are dead they move on to the snipers till they are dead etc, the only thing they concentrate on is the story. Which isn't the greatest in the world, They love Multiplayer on co-op just not feeling the single player love. so they move on to another game that can do that in singleplayer. Which is sad really because my friend josey stops playing it to play zoo keeper on the DS zoo keeper!!

Play a game where there is character connection and it will be like, no no don't kill him just knock him out, and everyone is engrosed in the game Eyes glued to the screen and they will play it for hours. Games like GRAW we can play for hours not because of the gameplay and storyline but the Character Scott Mitchell. The funniest thing is if you ask them a week later who they saw on the roster In R6 they will probably get one name. Ask them the names of the team in GRAW and they name every single one yes there is more then 4 names, it's just more immersive.

04-04-2006, 07:47 PM
I can name most of the characters from Rainbow Six because I feel I know them through 2 different methods.

The first is that I know of their attitudes and specialties through the book. I know Connelly (sadly left out of the game for reasons unknown) is a demo specialist who sometimes uses a bit too much for a job (cough shattered head cough) although too much is better than too little. I know Price likes to smoke a pipe after a mission and Ding respects his experience and usually calls on him for advice (in fact, he is supposed to be his senior, but not in the context of the team itself). I know the difference between Weber and Johnston's rifles. I know how they normally operate on missions.

I know the characters in the game through their short bios and how they have behaved on a mission. I know Ding made a snapshot that saved a hostage's life at the Met in New York. I know Weber nailed the man standing on the steps of the 747 with a PSG-1 before the team rushed in. I know it was McAllen who defused the bomb at the docks in Norway.

I do not need their thoughts and feelings on a mission. I do not require it for immersion, either. Subtle hints towards a character's individuality are not the same as hackneyed cliche ridden attempts at forging personalities, however... But it is difficult to see how it could be achieved because Special Forces ARE grey men. The 'thank you' of the Mountain Highway met with silence IS appropriate, no matter how much of a tosser that soldier could have seemed to somebody expecting a hand shake, a doff of the cap and a hearty 'you're welcome, citizen!'. It doesn't work like that. The operators shouldn't have been anyway near the hostages after the rescue anyway - normally they are shipped right the hell out of there for debrief almost immediately after.

Twists and turns in the story are most welcome, but they should NOT be opportunities to forge some sort of bond with our operators - we do that through training with them and doing missions with them, not seeing Ding playing at home with his kid or through seeing them play cards with each other. To see them offering suggestions and asking pertinent questions in a briefing scenario might work, but then again, what's the point? The way the story has been conveyed is ALWAYS in briefing format - we are the operators/operator in charge of planning, and the first we learn about the mission is in a briefing from Clark. The intelligence we get is of a situation that has been in progress since Clark first got word of it and now because it's gone tactical, we hear about it. Plot development only matters in this case when the player somehow has something to do with it. We're not the ones tracing phonecalls, hearing news reports or pressuring spooks. Clark's team are doing that. We're doing the mission, and it's the mission and it's surrounding circumstances we need to know about - nothing else.

I used to cringe when I saw those cutscenes from Raven Shield - the woman hiding in the cupboard in the bank... The mountain highway one especially. I just thought 'What's the point of this?' They added absolutely nothing to the game itself, and were more of a distraction and an attempt to make up for poor level design than anything else. We should feel immersed through appropriately realistically rendered surroundings and convincing, plausible and well delivered briefings, with in-depth and elaborate intelligence items. The mission itself is what we should be immersed in.

As for SWAT4, I find that one of the most immersive games I have ever played. Your team DO interact with you at certain points in missions, although it is minimal (as it should be), and they do have individual characteristics if you choose to listen and look carefully enough. I found it immersive and atmospheric for many reasons, the most principle of which is that the environments are rendered with a chilling realism - the urban detritus, the logical layouts, the environmental audio, the quality of the textures... superb. You really feel like each of the missions in SWAT4 is a part of the world, which is exactly how it should be AND a real bonus considering there is no storyline linking the missions. The reality of SWAT is that the missions they partake in ARE one-offs, they ARE random flashpoints all across the city. The fact that they have chosen to include a variety of mission-related intelligence (authentic sounding 911 calls, mugshots, badly drawn and sometimes improvised plans/sometimes blueprints and a well delivered briefing audio) with each mission goes some distance to providing such a feeling of immersion. Each mission also sounds like it could plausibly occur and in an appropriately realistic capacity. All I ask from Rainbow in terms of characterisation is that we are provided with the same believability and plausibility. I would advise against stretching this to breaking point with attempts at characteristation when they are neither needed or appropriate.

Yen Lo
04-04-2006, 08:21 PM
Swat 4 is a great game.
I agree wholehardly with Diffuser.
If you need "IMMERSION" why are you here now? Go back to Splinter Cell.
I dont know anyone inclined to buy shooters, is looking for a movie. Nobody wants a bunch of crappy cutscenes to click through, if you even bother to watch them once. Nobody wants a left mouse click list of possible responses too smart azzed tango comments. If I want to watch a movie Ill watch BHD, Bourne Identity, or Ronin. I want my "twitcher" games back. If I want to think I play Bookworm.

04-04-2006, 10:13 PM
It's my opinion, why get so mad about it? I respect yours even if you don't agree with me. People should be able to find out about the people from the game, in the game, we shouldn't need to buy books, buy films just to find out, if a game can't do that which is very simple it's very badly made. If this game wants to appeal it has to have more then just gameplay it needs a story and a good one with chars.

Why I used Splinter Cell as an example is because you don't need to read the books!! If you read the books you can find out more, but you get alot from the game anyways. I shall go back to Splinter Cell for Single Player, *lol* I play it more oftern then RvS sp anyways, because it's a far superior experience time and time again, it's different new thinsg I find new interogations etc. And once again a game that should try and target a wider audience won't, adding char develoment doesn't compromise gameplay you know? Just because people on here say they don't want it doesn't mean everyone else doesn't, I know lots of people online and offline who would like somthing like it added, if it's not added not a problem I would still buy the game and play it but... I would find it more immersive with char development.

As for Swat4 I found it boring simply because, I'm left at the back all the time nothing immersive about it for me. And if real swat is anything like that in america, have mercy on their souls. I try to breach a room I'll have Ai chapping at me "you're in my spot sir" so you have to let them do it, and in the end you do it solo. Unless you persevere with it and command them, that to me is boring after a few missions some people may love it, not many people I know do, maybe one or two. And the horrible rating system, my ai will shoot an armed enemy give me a lower score, even if I didn't fire a round so i'm trying to get them to give up by shock treatment even the paintball gun that fires pepper balls but that doesn't always work.

As for ambience well.... lets just say, my flatmate came home from abroad while I had that game on loud at like 11pm, and the sounds those suspects and hostages make arn't the best, because she thought I had someone in my room getting up to nothing good. *lol*

04-04-2006, 11:04 PM
Gameplay is what defined R6. Not characterization.

Woosy seems to think this something which needs work. UBI agrees... But the problem is UBI keeps sacrificing gameplay for characterization and this is what upsets a lot of fans -- myself included -- More than anything.

I think we also got into this on the console forum when we had a big in-depth discussion on the differences between movies and games.

Movies give us characters we can empathize and root for. In games, we (the player) ARE the characters. We don't need any of the classic storytelling elements in a game to have "fun" or be "immersed". This is what Defuser is getting at. The way games immerse a player is entirely different than how movies, books and TV does... But unfortunately, the games industry is hell-bent on hybridizing the two and the end results are usually less than spectacular.

04-05-2006, 12:38 AM
Forcing characterizations down our throats actually destroys the immersiveness for me. I want to feel like I'm controlling an elite CT team, not an actor in a lame knock-off of a Hollywood special forces movie (which are almost always extremely lame to begin with).

I want to know my operators' backgrounds and specialties. I want enough information to be able to decide who to take on a mission and what tasks to give them. I don't want unrealistic cliched attitudes or people's home lives forced upon me.

And actually, I'd prefer there wasn't some big overarching storyline tying the missions together. That typically makes it feel more fake as well.

I haven't played SWAT 4, but the descriptions of it (in this particular area) sound exactly like what I want from R6.

04-05-2006, 03:20 AM
Actually, I agree with Woosy, and imho he pointed out a good possibility to increase dramatically the degree of immersion in R6.

I read your posts and come to the conclusion, that Woosy might be misunderstood. Most of us are shocked of the way how UBI did "characterization" in Lockdown. But I think, Woosy wants to see it done an entirely different way! Even the word "characterization" might be the wrong word for it.

As I pointed out in my first post of this thread, a great gaming experience is MUCH about FEELINGS (i.e. immersion)!!! And I definitely see some possibilities to get me more involved with the TEAM rainbow... WITHOUT some kind of cheap characterization.

You might catch the atmosphere of concentration and tension right before a mission in a cutscene. The guys are sitting around in a helicopter... one is snoozing... Price is smoking his famous pipe... some go through the plan a last time... kind of this way.

Or you might see a news cast on TV: "Yesterday, a crisis was ended by a local SWAT team, though we never knew, that this country actually HAD one..."

Actually, Tom Clancy exactly did this in his book "Rainbow Six": He made you FEEL about those elite warriors WITHOUT getting "cheap" at any time!!!

BTW, I personally liked most of the cutscenes of Rvs. If I remember correctly there was one, where a child ran into the arms of a hostage I just had saved. That really moved me! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Or there was one which showed the clearing of the hostage room from the perspective of the hostages and tangos: A flashbang came in and detonated... then the black-clad R6 came in in a coordinated rush! Wow!!!

Or as Defuser described it perfectly:

"To see black-clad operators moving out in figures four is a sight to behold - the tight grip on their movements, every step and every gesture performed with razor-sharp precision from hours and hours of drills and practice."

<span class="ev_code_RED">@UBI:
If right done, the experience of an elite HRT in action is much more cooler than some dreadlock wearing, heavy metal playing street gang with unlimimted ammunition and bad *** jokes in combat!!! And this is likewise true for the senior guys just as young boys who dream to be a hero themselves!!!</span>

If Woosy means THIS with more "characterization", I more than entirely agree with him! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But I also agree with those who say, that the gameplay has the priority number ONE!


04-05-2006, 09:16 AM
Thats exactly what I mean!! I would love to know more about the team without compromising gameplay with little things like that. The way it was done on the console and Lockdown is NOT what I mean, that type of char development is annoying and cheap!

I'm talking about cutscenes which are part of the story but bring out the team so you get to know a bit about them but not in your face the way dreammarine said it what i mean. People keep saying If I want to watch a movie I'll buy one. FYI fire up RB6-3 and the first intro is more movie like then anything else. I don't want that movie type of immersiveness either.. I want it to be suttle but effective so it's not in your face i.e you can see them at briefings arriving on the scene, them watching newscasts on the situation. I don't want movie style stuff.

It's great people love the gameplay and the realistic gameplay made rainbow six I don't deny that. But things have changed since 1998, the way it is at the moment it doesn't appeal to none of the people I know, because it doesn't have much personality, add some to the chars within the story and people play, thats not much to ask i don't think. It's external to in-game and its suttle. Add it to in-game gameplay like lockdown and people get annoyed even new people to the series which I wouldn't like. Unlike lockdowns chars you can always press space on a cutscene to skip it, they have always been there since the first game! In actual fact the last outro on the original is more movie like then anything I've asked here, but people pick and choose what is and what isn't, then say, yeah but he was explaining, and? It's still movie-ish You can do the samething and add chars and keep on story.

And you do mean you agree with Her dreammarine I'm not a guy. *lol* could be why I like the personality thing, who knows adding some might bring some more females like me and my friends to the game in future!

04-06-2006, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by Woosy:
And you do mean you agree with Her dreammarine I'm not a guy. *lol* could be why I like the personality thing, who knows adding some might bring some more females like me and my friends to the game in future!

Ups, thanks for that info! I pledge betterment! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Really nice to make the acquaintance of a female who's a fan of R6! Seriously! I sometimes wondered if females like this kind of elite troops phantasies and how they look at it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

I always noticed a change to the better in certain "male domains" like karate clubs and so on. Without females guys games are almost always just about showing off and measuring who got the longer one. (adversarial MP in these days is a typical example for this attitude!) If you have females with it and if their way of looking at it is respected the whole thing usually gets a more teamlike and relaxter atmosphere.

This is NOT meant as some kind of gender stereotypes! It's more menat in the sense of a philosophical approach! (Yin-Yang) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I suggest to everybody to listen carefully to what Woosy said in her last post that "at the moment R6 doesn't appeal to none of the people Woosy knows, because it doesn't have much personality"!!!

And I can confirm to you, that there are also guys out there who love a deep story, the teamwork and the atmosphere of R6. Maybe we have to go for a mission together sometimes... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BTW, I am planning to buy that series "Ultimate Force" you talked about in another post. I am German, so I have to import it from Great Britain!

You think it's worth it, don't you?!


04-06-2006, 06:39 AM
Believe me, I am not angered by your post Woosy, I would consider myself a pretty unfortunate individual if I got riled by somebody's suggestion. We've got an atmosphere of open dialogue here on these boards, which is exactly how it should be.

On the subject of characterisation, I merely highlighted the fact that, at least for myself, I have never deemed it necessary nor in any way beneficial to have such attempts at individuating or characterising our operators. For me, immersion has always arisen from well-rendered environments and the construction of a believable game world, where there are no contradictions over the laws and gameplay mechanics that apply in that world. Realism can take a shortcut to immersion because if a gameworld can appropriately model or seek to emulate an environment in which we ourselves are in some way already partially familiar, we fill in the mental gaps, gaps in which the rendering of the game world might not cover. In this respect, it is much easier for a game to provide us with a world in which we are familiar with its rules, laws and aesthetic than a fantasy land in which it would be difficult to immerse the player without giving them appopriate background info as to the specific design elements that comprise it.

The suggestion that we should have immersion 'through' the mission is one in which I was trying to highlight the fact that if we provide appropriate additional info to our mission scenarios, such as well-constructed and plausible intelligence, then we can get a feel for the environment in such a way that a rendered cutscene could never achieve. One of the ideas I had earlier on is that the menu screens, or planning segment, was not as rigid or as 'flat' as before. Previous games have taken a shortcut towards plausibility in the planning segment because the menus are rendered as to appear as screens on a laptop, in that each specific part of the planning segment is a series of menus on a laptop (possibly loaded with some kind of planning software). This was an attempt to make sure that you didn't leave the gameworld by being taken to a menu screen completely detached from it. In that respect, I think it would be useful for us to be able to 'see' the briefing in progress, perhaps be part of a rendered planning room in which we can view actually rendered files and folders, look at a scale model/blueprints/**** drawing of our target, and if need be visit an armoury while outfitting our operators. The choosing of the operators is still handled by viewing their files, but perhaps we can choose to view footage of them training (nothing extravagant, perhaps just some shots of Weber on the sniper range, or watching Loiselle clear a room from CCTV footage). In this respect we learn their characters, without having to learn about their private lives or succumb to the temptation of having them make extravagant gestures to indicate their individuality. As KFCIA says, we are not at the same stage with games as we are movies - we're getting there, but implementing character development in games, especially in ones in which there is so little opportunity for and so little need for, simply has to be so subtle you'd miss it or so outrageous that it becomes hackneyed, such is the timeframe and circumstances in which you are to operate.

I don't think we need cutscenes to provide immersion or some sort of semblance of scene-setting, nor do I think we need character development highlighted in soundbites or specific animation. Things such as that are an unnecessary addition to the core gameplay mechanic, somewhat unrealistic and also a distraction from the game world in which you are supposed to be operating - a world in which your operators do what you do, are the best of the best, trained and grey men. The environments in which you operate are harsh and unforgiving, the speed fast as lightening, and the personalities which you encounter ultimately don't matter. I just don't see how any attempt at characterisation would work within the context of a game like Rainbow Six.

04-06-2006, 09:09 AM
Defuser, I get immersed by the same things Graphics, Atmosphere,Story, but over the years I have changed. Back in 1998 when i was a pup 14 I had no clue what linear was apart from those planes that buzz the air. I've grown up now im 22, and so have my friends and we like games that go really deep or that have some personality to. The original Rainbow Six had a great storyline, and I loved that game. Remembering it's the first realistic game that I had played. My family come from an Army background so it's hard not to escape, but being able to do something I can never do in this country due to how things are, this was my outlet.

I did everything from listerning to the briefing to planning, it's the game that made me drop my 2 meg graphic card,http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif and made me save to get a 3d banshee. The games that Followed Rainbow Six, where the same but better graphics, everything else remained stagnant, I brought a few addons, eagle watch, covert ops. But they where the same game, if you know what I mean? They where fun but they could of been more with progression.

Raven Shield came out, and the story was ok the game had progressed in terms of gameplay new things you can do,Awesome! The game was set out pretty much the same as the others which is cool, but I'm wondering why we don't see any interactive briefings where by you can see john clark and the inteligence officer talking to the team how it would happen in real life. If you played Rb6-3, you see them get briefed on helicopter by a laptop which to me is unrealistic, it's just http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif meh.

Little things like that have big meanings to gamers like me, who want a little bit more, I understand people are happy with it the way it is but the way ubi have been adding char development in-game everyone is annoyed about if it was done another way i don't think it would. RvS I still play it's great game, I have a blast, and I still do on co-op. But the point is my friends who play the game, who do like Special Forces get do exactly what you would but when get in game, because there is no player connection they use the operatives as extra lives. They should mean more to the player then just extra lives don't you think? So they're more then just those black clad people.

Thats where people get turned off by it because there isn't a purpose to it, as such. The most serious players will do it again and again, but there is a question why should I and what purpose? So there only thing making them play on is the storyline. They arn't playing the game wrong, there is more then one way to play the game, but to me it is wrong even though no player connection. But as I've said If i get a man down I sometimes won't stop. Now if the game brings out the team a little, and you can the gamer gets a little sence they're more then just a black clad guy who is expendable but an asset. They will do the map time and time again to do it right. If they did they would have a blast, knowing who to set as team leader who not and to do mission without loss as they are just as human as everyone else. You cannot get to know someone by a little bio, it's like me handing someone my CV, they will still want to know more about me.

I don't think it's that distracting if it's done right, like briefing where they're explaining and the team asking questions on numbers weapons etc and scenes of the aftermath which happened alot in Raven Shield anyways. But can show somthing else without totaly going in your face hey im ding chavez sublte is good enough, enough to say yeah that guy is worth a dam I'll make sure he doesn't die.

DreamMarine, Ultimate Force rocks!! I don't know many Special forces tv Series that are like it. The latest one The Unit, doesn't even come close to Ultimate Force, each one of the operatives have their speciality and they are super awesome, I still watch the DVD's. The funny thing about it is, it answers alot of questions people have asked on here like CQC with knifes, picking up weapons and so on. But I can tell you, you'll love it, you will, you'll love it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

04-06-2006, 10:20 AM
I think there is no need for character development.Its the actual gameplay which sets the "mood" for me in a game like R6.It could be nice to be able to read the background of the team members.This would be a positiv thing, if theire stories was not "hollywodish".But when it comes to cut-scenes giving some more depth, well...the problem is that these cut-scenes would dictate who has to live through each mission and who has to be a part of a mission.And that would take away the freedom of choosing members, and the freedom to continue the mission if someone dies.The typical scenario would be: "this person must always be a part of a mission and he cant die, then its mission over".And the story might get to focused on one main-person.And he would be the hero..Thats not what I want in a R6 game..And also, I really dont trust Ubi to make character development without making them abit redicilus.Like the hero having corn-rows and listening to teenage rock music..My suggestion is that: no character-development, is better then character-development which sucks.Becouse if there is none, it would most likely mean more freedom, and I could also make up my own mind how I feel about the different characters.And I believe skills are more important then theire stories when choosing who to come on a mission.I mean, if a really great sniper died on a mission, I would think:"****, my best sniper...Im gonna miss him on other missions so its best I start over again..."
A thing I wanna mention when it comes to "the real R6 feeling" is the use of commercials ingame.Theres nothing more disturbing then sneeking around, your heart pumping fast,you hear the enemy and take cover behind a wall, and then you see it:A big poster telling you that some other game is soon to hit the shelves.What a totaly loss of mood and feeling of the game.You start looking at the poster, either the game came out a year ago and it totally sucked, or it is soon to come and you couldt care less.Anyway you see it there where it absolutely not belong, and just loose all the tension that was built up.Please dont stick commercial posters on the walls ubi!

04-06-2006, 11:26 AM
Thats not what I'm talking about!! Please read carefully... When you play Lockdown and you get the silly adverts in-game about GRAW I don't like that, if they are realisticaly done they are ok with me but this not what I'm on about anyways. In Lockdown there is some silly character sterotype where the afro american woman Raymond has to sound like big momma and a right bossy boots at that. Then there is price who will brown nose me till the dawn of day. that to me is NOT I repeat NOT character development, it's stupid cheap and annoying. I hope you're with me.

What I'm talking about isn't like that and it isn't hollywoodish at all. Operatives "In Real Life" don't get briefed by a single laptop, they go to a briefing room and the situation is explained, then inteligence will explain why its happened what group has done it, number, weapons and hostages, this is an area where you can bring out there team where you can see their attitudes towards the mission asking questions etc. It isn't over the top it's plausable, more plausable then the whole team, looking over one laptop like in rainbow six 3, thats for sure!

There doesn't have to be a hero character, I don't know where you get that idea from, there is no I in team there is in win though. The idea would be to get the team through alive not dead which all the hardcore fan do there is a purpose to do so with character development. The way people say well... I like to be immersed by gameplay, not like this, thats cool for you, but alot of people I know want just a bit more.

And you're missing the point *lol* briefing is done outside the action phase. So once thats done you're immersed by the gameplay, which I do!! I think you have it the wrong way around, I don't want in-game talk where character development is done, I've seen it and hate it, and no one likes it. But rather pre-action where it can be done more realistcaly and isn't stupid like hollywood.

Thats another thing, if you've played rainbow six on the console it's movie like in cutscenes they arn't realistic, they are over the top. Me and others want them done realisticaly showing them as professionals and humans, not jean claud van dame. I think you need an open mind to understand where i'm coming from. It's somthing that could key word could be added not it has already been added, I think people would prefer that way anyways, then Raymond going, Chavez get you arse over here now!!

04-06-2006, 01:01 PM
I do not think that giving our operators some sort of identity is in itself a bad thing - however, I do think that the methods we have of implementing such character development, in the context of the game, are either going to be too subtle for the average player to notice if we go by realistic constraints (such as an ever-so-slightly different height, speed or movement pattern) or too outrageous for them to be taken credibly (stereotypical accents, personalised armour, flags on armpatches). The problem is that the methods of implementation are simply not sophisticated enough for a game like Rainbow Six. Interactive briefings are a welcome suggestion, but how that would be implemented while maintaining some sort of character would be difficult to envisage. Could we really take seriously Price smoking a pipe in a briefing? Ding leaning against a wall? Loiselle stood with his arms folded? Offering questions over insertion method? Is this character development, or merely an attempt to forge identity?

We're talking about two different things here - the first is immersion, the second is character development or giving characters an identity. Woosy, you want to feel like the operators you are with are real people. We all want that. The quickest route to that is to give people easily identifiable traits, be it in briefings or otherwise. The problem I and people like KFCIA have with this is that it is sledge-hammer subtlety - operators ARE mostly uniform in how they behave on a mission. There are simply insufficient differences between operators while 'on-task' for any attempt at characterisation to be met with anything other than incredulity and raised eyebrows. This includes behaviour in briefings. This is precisely the problem illustrated in the recent X360 Vegas previews - animating the operators sufficiently differently as to provide different identities. Myself, I don't want that. Neither do a large proportion of the realism crowd. To me, that smacks of an inability to recognise that it is the realism of the encounters, the rendering of the environments, and a recognition that all else is secondary to the importance of the mission and how it is executed.

What you want is to feel immersed by having 'real people' with you, and to feel as though you are in a realistic scenario because there are people you care about and know something about with you. In this respect, character development is critical to you because it aids in making you feel a part of the gameworld. I don't require that - it is the action which immerses me. As long as the operators with me behave within realistically plausible limits, then I am happy, because I am satisfied in the knowledge that I am engaging in a practice repeated by special forces the world over, and as long as the briefings I am given sound authentic, and the behaviour of the operators with me is realistic enough to merit them being regarded as special forces; I don't require anything more than that, and judging from the sales of countless other tactical FPS games available, so too do a lot of other players.

While I applaud your suggestion to include something 'more', and like you, I am always searching for that something more in my games. Every new game that gets released I look at and critique in seeing how and why certain design decisions were made and whether these decisions were an attempt to geniunely push the release into new and more bold territory or were simply decisions made on a regressive business model that looks for a safe return on investment and little else. However, there comes a point in time where such decisions made to push the game into new territory may end up having a detrimental effect. You want to feel like you know the operators more than just reading a blurb about them, likening it to a CV. I myself am utterly fine with that because, while on mission, none of that information matters to me outside of feeling like they have a history and are people. I don't need to be shown their unique behaviour in briefings or to be somehow impressed with some pre-mission banter to emphasise that.

04-06-2006, 01:49 PM
I just mean to show they're human not just killing machines, I don't mean individual character development, do it to a level where you can say, yeah ok I don't want these guys to die, they are valuble. Price smoking a pipe *lol* and Ding leaning on somthing is over the top and is not serious, these are mean't to be professionals, that would be leaning over to movie like. I would have to show you Ultimate Force, for you to know what I mean, then you would be like ahhh I see. I might have to snip some from it and show you if you like?

Some games I play the way you do rainbow six but they don't have a storyline. But back story. The Regiment, the game is so immersive as it is with mission like the embassy, which I know from alot of history, and most people do in britain. I unlike many watched interviews, you know how they are, you know they get scared just like anyone else, they're human but very professional Operators.

That sets it off straight away as I get a sence of who they are and why they do it. So all you do is focus on the gameplay which is fast and immersive, and everyone seems to have a role and a "purpose" which if a man goes down you do feel bad, hes useful. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif That doesn't happen as much in R6 as everyone can be replaced.

The other things is, if you don't trust Ubisoft to do character development, how can you trust them to do an entire game from foundation of singleplayer, story and multiplayer? There has been the question how can you appeal to the wider audience without compromising the gameplay. I know my friends it would appeal to add some personality not overboard just a little.. So imagine the next Rainbow Six was like Rogue Spear perfect in gameplay, but it had to appeal to people like my friends what would you add? Because I'm out. Nothing else I know will bring my friends to this game for single player, only multiplayer.

04-06-2006, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Woosy:
I would have to show you Ultimate Force, for you to know what I mean...
Terrible storylines and embarrassing acting?

04-06-2006, 04:06 PM
Nope, it's not bad. Better then "The Unit" which imho is far too over the top, where Jonus boards a plane and him alone, manages to clear it without even securing the bad guy who droped the gun. *lol* UF version they do a full breach on the plane which is alot more realistic, in series 3. Some parts do make me giggle but thats the great thing about the show. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif some clips you can watch I uploaded, a while back.

Bank (http://youtube.com/watch?v=yZoqpqvD1gA)
Training (http://youtube.com/watch?v=EjokKgX0K1Q)
Recruit Welcome (http://youtube.com/watch?v=UlLELKW4Uyo)

Yen Lo
04-06-2006, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Woosy:
Nope, it's not bad. Better then "The Unit" which imho is far too over the top, where Jonus boards a plane and him alone, manages to clear it without even securing the bad guy who droped the gun. *lol* UF version they do a full breach on the plane which is alot more realistic, in series 3. Some parts do make me giggle but thats the great thing about the show. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif some clips you can watch I uploaded, a while back.

Bank (http://youtube.com/watch?v=yZoqpqvD1gA)
Training (http://youtube.com/watch?v=EjokKgX0K1Q)
Recruit Welcome (http://youtube.com/watch?v=UlLELKW4Uyo)

Hey Woosy, do you think those tactics portrayed in the Unit are tactics they would use in real life?

04-06-2006, 07:13 PM
I don't work in the special forces, but I think the first episode with the plane was over the top. There didn't seem to be any planning unless the viewer is mean't to think that they did I dunno? It seemed wreckless and not very co-ordinated, how was he to know there wasn't explosives behind the door that he blew off? He didn't know numbers positions or anything. but he breaches anyway, takes down the plane, doesn't clear it totaly just think he does. His team with Grey and Williams don't come up the stairs to back him up they stay ground level, I mean what type of special forces is this? So while hes assaulting he runs out of ammunition and a guy behind him is about to hit the detonator to blow the plane and he turns and ends it hero style, and thats that plane clear, even though hes not checked the rest of the plane. If those tactics where done in real life a 1 man army with 10+ terrorists he would be dead along with the hostages. I expected more from that being that Eric Haney was working on it.

The following episodes seem a little more plausable but still wreckless, how can you not secure a suspect? I laughed when that guy jumped out the plane. Episode four I think true belivers seems the most realistic episode i've seen. So to your question i don't believe all thats done in that show is used in real life or there would be huge loss of life.

In Ultimate Force they get the two teams red troop and blue troop talk over who is going to do what who's the sniper etc, and the decoy, who is the female pilot. Who would board the plane get any intel and report back, then two minutes later they would board and kill the terrorists. They planned to board the plane from 4 places aggressivly, when they got the intel from the dummy female pilot most of the plane was booby trapped so they had to change part of the plan. They didn't disobey orders, and go "I'm going to take down that plane." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Once they boarded that plane they boarded it from mutiple places simutaniously, it was over dramatised but not to the point where its wreckless, they clear the plane top to bottom then report stonghold is secure, seemed more professional to me. I don't think there is an excuse for The Unit being like it is when they get a bigger budget then us brits. UF only had 700k budget with Chris Ryan working on it, where as The Unit has a million or two.

04-06-2006, 07:58 PM
I prefer 'The Unit' to 'Ultimate Force.'

Both leave a lot to be desired in many areas, but 'The Unit' just feels a lot more professionally written, produced, and acted. You actually get the sense that the team is an elite team working on a global scale, while in 'Ultimate Force' the SAS seems more like an unprofessional local SWAT team at times.

I thought the one-man plane takedown in 'The Unit's' pilot was weak as well, but the episodes have improved since, IMHO.

As far as the tactics go, Haney has said they will be as realistic as he wants them to be, with an eye towards not showing anything he doesn't feel should be known to the public.

But anyway, we're discussing the programs because of the characterizations shown, not the tactics, and I'd much prefer R6 modelled 'The Unit' over 'Ultimate Force' in this regard if I was forced to choose one.

Yen Lo
04-06-2006, 08:20 PM
Woosy I was going to ask what you do with your life outside of work or school or whatever, but Iam getting the gist of it now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Most 20 something ladies are either chasing or getting chased by 20 something year old guys, well at least where I live. And theres about 27,000 plus of them here right now.
Man sell your tv and get out of the house.
You know the people who finance those shows have the final say in what gets shown?
You should email your complaint to the production company, sounds legit to me.
BTW my thing is the human interest stuff. yknow the stuff that normally happens everyday that they waste time on. Hate it, Blah.

Yen Lo
04-06-2006, 08:32 PM
Ill have to look around the net for some UF and see if I can find it.
ya I normally hate tv, Unit is the first series Ive watched literally since they took the X files off when it stopped making sence.
so far my favorite part is when jonas shot the mirror lol. They need to tone down the Col. and Bobs wife, gawd shes awful. I cringe when shes on. Basically I think its alright barring what I said, wonder how long it will last.
Haneys like **** Marcinko, you could make an arguement neither should be talking about what they talk about(secret), but then we are suppose to be an open society. lol.
I noticed Haney got remarried hmmm.

04-06-2006, 09:06 PM
Umm... Two different cultures, one is british acting one is american and the american show has a bigger budget so it looks far more polished thats just a fact of the bigger audience in the USA. I being a Brit myself can relate to the british characters and their jokes. Would those actors in The Unit and UF look good in a game, answer would be no, because it's a drama both shows are.

I don't know where you can say UF team work as unprofessional SWAT team. No one in the world today breaches a plane, with one man that is unprofessional, and he didn't even secure it that is amateurish!! It's breached mutiple places simutaniously, thats how most if not all special forces do it today in real life, on UF they show this happen. They also secure suspects as shown on the ep "what in the name of god" when it's needed to, not ignorant to the fact he could wake up and do some damage or maybe jump out of the second floor window.

As I say culture difference with the characters, I like both casts, not one I can say are any better then the other as they're both cool to me. But the show and the missions arn't done by what I would call Elite operatives on The Unit very movie like. Chris Ryan like Haney have had real world experience, yet the missions I have seen on UF are alot better, they have planning and inteligence before an op they are planned out and don't seem wreckless where as The Unit is. I shall keep my eye on The Unit and see if I ever see this happen, very doubtful but you never know.

04-06-2006, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by Yen Lo:
Woosy I was going to ask what you do with your life outside of work or school or whatever, but Iam getting the gist of it now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
Most 20 something ladies are either chasing or getting chased by 20 something year old guys, well at least where I live. And theres about 27,000 plus of them here right now.
Man sell your tv and get out of the house.
You know the people who finance those shows have the final say in what gets shown?
You should email your complaint to the production company, sounds legit to me.
BTW my thing is the human interest stuff. yknow the stuff that normally happens everyday that they waste time on. Hate it, Blah.

I live my life to the full outside of work. My work being a beautician is fun fun fun body art piercings and waxing, watch out guys! So it isn't a drag because I enjoy it! Most of my 20+ female friends I've converted in to gamers, Go me! I have a boyfriend he keeps me busy though hes always playing that poopy WoW, he has no sence of realism y'know? Hope he doesn't read this board, he will crucify me for saying that. I have too many hobbies to list some from skydiving airsofting etc I still go to the Army Cadets and learn a ton (yes you can at 22, and it's not sad.) My friends do it too soo... Here the people who finance shows. As far as I know the scripts are givern to the production company before hand to read, they don't ask to change them, if they're bad they're scrapped and the show won't air period. If anyone here watched Little Britian Tv show history that came on a while ago, they tell you how the finance company deals with it they produced so many scripts that got rejected, until they made one the finance company agreed to. Then the show got made.

I can see what you mean on the human thing Yenlo, I think it's cool to an extent though can see how the wifes deal with it, though I do wish I could choke Mrs brown, the show is like hmm desperate house wives cross between some other special op show. It's not bad don't get me wrong i enjoy the show but it could be improved in many areas.

04-07-2006, 01:41 AM
Again, I'm not speaking about the tactics shown (and I'll admit that 'Ultimate Force' seems to care more about this than 'The Unit' although I'd argue neither shows the tactics all that realistically).

What I mean is 'The Unit' does a much better job of conveying that these are elite, extremely capable professionals we are watching and that the scope of their missions is truly global.

'Ultimate Force' doesn't get this across very well in my opinion, being held down by the characterization of the operators as well as some of the missions depicted (i.e. taking on a group of low-rent crooks in a bungled bank heist).

04-07-2006, 08:04 AM
I don't know if you know how the SAS works? In my country in any hostage situation be it with low-rent crooks the SAS will be called. S019 (British SWAT) have command till a hostage is executed then it will be handed over to the SAS either by the police CO (commanding officer) or home office. Exactly like the Embassy job back in 1980, S019 don't do explosive entry on buildings. They're not trained for that, where as the SAS are, you might like to do some research on special forces.

later in the series they go to Bosnia, Russia, Georgia, Iraq and Zimbabwe, The SAS are more then capable of going to one place around the world, most of us in britian know they where in the fawklands, bosnia, Sierria leone and recently recused some Christian guy in Iraq that was all over the news there are many more places that would take up too much space.

The Unit shows the team as Professionals till they do a mission, where all that Elite gets crushed up and is thrown out the window. They showed E&E (Escape and Evasion) on the recent ep, yet Mr Bob Brown makes himself stand out like a sore thumb by stealing a bike and getting arrested. Lucky the police where as incompetent as him and didn't handcuff him otherwise it would of been game over, anyone with knowledge on E&E knows you keep low till you reach your final destination where friendly units are. Doing the total opposite is stupid and wreckless. And why wernt they using proper comms in the hotel? The SAS in every ep I seen use proper comms throat mics. I really do think they arn't that Elite, Haney needs to make it a little more realistic are these boy scouts or Rangers? Because I would be insulted if I was in the US Special Forces right now.

04-07-2006, 09:01 AM
Woosy, I have seen Ultimate Force. The vast majority of it, in fact. From the bungled bank heist to the remarkably misunderstood David Koresh/Camp Davidian wish fulfillment episode.

Ultimate Force's character development revolves around domestic crises affecting people 'on mission'. That scots bloke's wife sleeping with their CO, resulting in him going mental and charging an entrenched enemy position (the one in the Balkans) like a reckless madman, endangering the lives of his squadmates. The fact he survived was sheer luck rather than anything else, and the series should have had him die right there and then because he completely lost his professionalism and behaved like an idiot. Behaving like that means he wasn't fit for duty. That woman getting it on with Jamie Draven. His dad being a ******. The ridiculous love triangles... The utterly stupifying safe cracking mission... All the women 'emotionally' involved for some tenous reason or other...

I like Ultimate Force because of the combat and for the most part its semi-realistic depiction of SAS (style) tactics. However, I hate it for the ridiculous attempts at character development and an attempt to introduce personal conflicts onto the battlefield. Undoubtedly it does happen, but surely not to the extent it does in this series. Ultimate Force REALLY stretched my boundaries of belief. It REALLY grated me to see grandoise and ridiculous soap-opera style plot development. If they introduced such aspects into Rainbow Six, I'd be annoyed. More than annoyed, I'd question what the purpose of it was.

You have to see Ultimate Force for what it is, Woosy. It is NOT a realistic depiction of SAS activity (even if one were to exist, it probably couldn't be broadcast). It is a soap opera with action-movie elements that makes pretensions to realism. Yes, Chris Ryan was an advisor. Yes, he lends it creedence. But honestly... What SF outfit worth its salt would let some informant in a car report on your troop movements without checking out the surrounding AO first? Would your CO then take a sniper rifle and take him out without even ascertaining any identity or any attempt to take him alive?

As well as this, I take issue with you saying that operators get scared. Literally EVERY interview I have ever read or listened to with SF personnel has usually included the question 'Do you get scared?' and they say 'Not really'. They usually say it is more tension before a mission, but when on task, their mind is 'on task'. Never once have I seen or heard an SF admit to being scared while on-mission. Not once. Undoubtedly some fear might have existed beforehand, but their training and sheer professionalism means this is not even on the radar when they are in there, shooting people.

If you want a (semi) realistic depiction of SAS activity, Bravo Two Zero should be your first port of call. Most of it is wildly exaggerated, and a lot of the details are changed compared to what apparently actually happened to make McNab appear in a much more positive light than others have indicated (no landrover?!), but it is still relatively exciting and minimises the bullcrap Ultimate Force layers on in spades.

Honestly, if Ultimate Force is the model for character development here, then I doubt it would work.

04-07-2006, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Woosy:
there is no I in team

But there is an M and an E. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


04-07-2006, 09:49 AM
The Episode you're talking about, where Pete runs along the bank don't you know why he did it? Watch the episode again he has PTSD and says to Jamie I can't get help for it, because they will kick me off ops. I rather be dead then not do an op, and plans to be. Just before he does that run and gun Henno say to Pete, the only way in is along the bank, and it's suicide. So he jumps at the opportunity to kill himself, he wants to die.

The CO who shot the guy in the car was 100% certain they located deep throat why? Because they got the police to search and clear the area, when henno got caught. And that was the only place that was in LOS of the facility that had a steamed up window, the team confirmed it the CO took the shot.

Yes it's over-dramazited i had said in a previous post, so is the unit I don't expect to see 100% realism, but I can say ok that looks more believable then that.

Yes there have been interviews where they say they get scared, they say you're lying if you're not or either mentaly deficient but they said fear is a good healthy reaction. I don't make things up Defuser only go on what i either read or see, so I uploaded the clip for you to watch, you will need a ram player either real player or MPC which plays the format.

Clip (http://www.cdek.co.uk/SASCQBDemo01.rar)

04-07-2006, 11:01 AM
First of all I think you misunderstood what I said - I took that to mean that operators demonstrate fear while on a mission. I did acknowledge that they may act as though they are worried or tense about being in the enviroment where people are going to get killed, but that while 'on-task', as that video shows, then it doesn't bother them to the extent that it would harm the mission's progress. I apologise for the confusion.

Secondly, my point about the CO nailing the informant is not that he was killed, but that he was killed AFTER they had made the decision to go in and that Henno was caught. They did not sweep and clear until AFTER they made the approach. That is silly and completely flies in the face of the caution that is normally demonstrated by SF on those kind of operations. The whole place has to be cordoned off and gone over with a fine tooth comb before SF go anywhere near the building, for their own safety and for the public's safety. The fact that they didn't can either be seen as an illustration of a tactical blunder, or a mistake made in the production of the series. I would argue that it was a mistake, as I doubt a real SF outfit would make such a school boy error.

Finally, Pete would never have been allowed on a mission in reality. There are very finely tuned processes within the regiment for weeding out nutters (not very PC, but still), like Pete was by that point in the series. Take a read of the book 'Operators' available on Amazon. That demonstrates some of the stringent psychological testing operators are subject to not only upon selection, but regularly after, especially after being active on operations. I do not believe Pete could have gotten away with being put back on active service as he was in the series, despite all the testing and convincing he had to do. Not only that, his one man assault on the bunker, while being suicidal, was a lot more ridiculous than all of the team assaulting it - especially as it was the only way in. They could all have moved in (they were forced to after he moved, anyway), but his lunacy, his exposure of the team before they were ready to move, his utter recklessness, was not befitting of an SF and demonstrated his lack of professionalism. Things like that cannot be explained away by saying 'it's ok, he was mental', because he should never have been there in the first place. And even though the rest of the boys in the outfit are his mates, they would have shopped him because he was putting their lives on the line as well as his own by being there and doing what he did. They would not sit back and watch him waste himself (and possibly them too in the process) like he was planning to.

Woosy, I do not suggest that you are a liar, nor do I suggest that somehow you are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. I took issue with what you said because I wanted to present a counter-argument, not because I wanted to make you look like some kind of shyster. As well as that, I don't think you meant to say that Ultimate Force is in any way an entirely realistic portrayal of SF action. I know you want characterisation. I think that whichever way it is handled, it would be a disaster, as the opportunities for its implementation simply do not meet acceptable standards of realism or credibility. I don't think we should have cutscenes. I applaud the Vegas designers for including everything in the player's gaze. I am ambivalent about interactive/realtime briefings. That is my position.

04-07-2006, 11:53 AM
I totaly agree with what you say, when you put it like that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif If it wasn't like that though there would be no drama, it could of been done better I suppose. *Shrugs* And what you said about being scared I think i got misunderstood, has happened alot in this thread, I appologise if I wasn't clear. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I dunno where this thread really got on to these tv shows as characterization. I went off topic to point to dreammarine who was interested in the show, I didn't use it as an example for what could be done in Rainbow Six, because it's not.http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

As I've said Defuser, I don't mind if the game doesn't include it, as if it's a good game I would buy it and play it. And play it how most would. But to the many people who are out there somthing small could interest them to pick it up and play, which I know my friends would. I mean my friends like the Multiplayer aspect but not the singleplayer game which is a shame, because the game turns out to be a muliplayer game only for them. And as you and I know it's much much more then that. I know that you along with many on here will play the game hardcore style, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif that I respect highly, but for someone who isn't so in to special focrces as much as us or rainbow six but wants a good game to play which immerses them in another way if not chars somthing else, how do you do it?

It's been asked quite alot on here, how to appeal to the mass audience. Alot of people want to keep it the same which I respect and I see why. But when you think about it it's a dead end, maybe rainbow six is it's peak before lockdown and to add somthing new would compromise the game and alienate the players I dunno. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

04-07-2006, 12:14 PM
So-called characterization would be fine in R6 if it met these two criteria:

1) Did not interfere with the core gameplay which made R6 unique in the first place.

Unfortunately, I don't see this happening because not just of how baddly LD did it, but if you start to go the scripted, interactive-movie route, a lot of the non-linear, free roaming play style is gone because when something is scripted the outcome is already known (as another poster stated) and hence, there can't be any choices as to who lives, dies, becomes incapacitated, etc.

2) The actual characterization was apppropriate for the situations R6 finds themselves in. This ties in with the first element above, but even moreso as far as so-called characterization goes.

Lockdown took the easy-way out of just having the operatives spout childish non-sense in the midst of battle. This wasn't even "characterization" if we are going to disect this to the bone. It was pointless, offensive, irritating chatter for the sake of chatter and nothing else. Not immersion. Not characterization. Just so the player would "feel" for their AI team mates.

Here is the main problem:

This is a game.

(Duh!) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In SP when you are accompanied by NPC/AI team mates... The player KNOWS this. They could CARE LESS about this fact if we are going to be brutally honest. This is because AI is nowhwere near as skilled as another human player, but also because the scripted dialogue most NPC/AI uses are three, or four sound bites that are triggered during the AI routine whenever they do something like "Tango down!" and that's it.

Real humans -- gamers and SF Operators -- Are going to be communicating a lot more, BUT it is ABOUT what is going on such as...

"Tango on the right!"

"I got him!"

"Tango spotted!"

"Where is he?"

"Left, left!"

"I got him"

(Throws grenade; grenade explodes)

"Got him!"

This is what is missing with ALL NPC/AI routines as far as both realism and immersion goes. They are lifeless robots in every sense of the word like Woosy says...

But I would rather have a "lifeless robot" than a hackneyed, chidlish sterotype shoved down my throat like LD did and I think this is the general position most people who are saying characterization doesn't matter also feel because it has (saddly) become a situation of the lesser of two evils since SP games and AI are just not at the level of movies and or MP games.


Also, characterization doesn't just mean verbal and audio cues either.

This is where games CANNOT equal movies.

As a former screenwriter, you build characterzations through visual cues -- especially, for film -- Such as having a guy always tap his pen against the table when he is thinking or going over the plan for example.

Another example from a script I wrote is where a grizzled police detective always has a steaming cup of hot tea -- not coffee -- Because he hates caffine because it "strings (strung) him out". In setting this up, I can have his fellow officers tease him about not drinking a real "man's" drink like black coffee, or alcohol and him respond in a joking manner.

Also, the detective NOT drinking coffee tells us about his personality -- or traces of it -- Without us having to know anything else about him other than this one trait (to begin with) as all good characterization should.

In this case, it helped get the point across not only is he experienced (age; on the job) and comfortable enough to drink what he wants (no peer pressure), but it points to his personality being a more laid-back kind of cop compared to the hard-charging guys he works with.

THIS is what real characteriztion is and why no games can do it right yet due to the subtleness and time constraint differences between movies/novels and games (you can demonstrate these traits over and over again over a longer period of time versus a game).

04-07-2006, 02:01 PM
You've got it pretty much nailed there, KFCIA. Good characterisation occurs when you have a character, or rather an idea of that character, and the situations presented to them, and their responses to them, flow naturally from that character set. A good character is one in which it virtually writes itself. You don't need to struggle to afford them opportunities to demonstrate their individuality because it flows naturally, organically and realistically oweing to the situation.

We'll never reach that level of sophistication in games at the moment, especially not one like Rainbow Six, because all this characterisation has to occur in such short spaces of time and in such contrived circumstances that in order to generate such impressions about the characters themselves, you have to employ sledge-hammer subtlety. You have to institute outrageous behaviour otherwise the character traits are so subtle as to the effect of having the majority of players miss them. Characterisation CAN occur, but for the most part it would be so fleeting and in such a small commodity, that its inclusion would be throw away and would not achieve the effect primarily desired of it, which is to forge a sense of life about your fellow operators.

Yen Lo
04-07-2006, 10:12 PM
Do you guys get the Unit for free? Isnt there a delay from when its shown here and there? If your paying for it(which Iam not) then you should definately email Mr. Haney and tell him your not happy with his show. Iam sure hed be glad to here from you. You obviously analysis things WAY more than everybody else, (not necessarly a bad thing) and Iam sure hed want to put out the show possible.

07-03-2010, 03:50 AM
Stumbled about this thread again. "Ultimate Force" is much closer to the "real R6" world than "The Unit". I am watching it right now for the third or fourth time. In particular the first part is like the next R6 should be like again.

Just a small recommandation!

07-14-2010, 12:46 AM
Holy thread flashback! I remember most of the posters in this thread. lol