View Full Version : I want the game to return to its old ways

04-22-2009, 12:16 PM
Am I the only one that want this whole entire Rainbow Six franchise back to its old roots like Rainbow Six three and Rainbow Six Black Arrow. I remember the old maps like Military Base, Persido, Garage, Warehouse, and so many amazing maps. Now the franchise only bases its maps on Vegas which for me is ******ed. Once they came out with Lockdown for me the franchise died for me.I think that the reason they changed its format because people like always started complaining that black arrow was an expansion back.I remember playing clan matches for countless hours and never begin bored. Hopefully they come to their senses and go back til then I wont be playing games.

here are some videos of clan matches just in case you weren't around for this game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...nogk&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8Wdt1fnogk&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...hwjI&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO4vN8qhwjI&feature=related)

04-22-2009, 12:16 PM
Am I the only one that want this whole entire Rainbow Six franchise back to its old roots like Rainbow Six three and Rainbow Six Black Arrow. I remember the old maps like Military Base, Persido, Garage, Warehouse, and so many amazing maps. Now the franchise only bases its maps on Vegas which for me is ******ed. Once they came out with Lockdown for me the franchise died for me.I think that the reason they changed its format because people like always started complaining that black arrow was an expansion back.I remember playing clan matches for countless hours and never begin bored. Hopefully they come to their senses and go back til then I wont be playing games.

here are some videos of clan matches just in case you weren't around for this game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...nogk&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8Wdt1fnogk&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...hwjI&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO4vN8qhwjI&feature=related)

04-22-2009, 10:59 PM
Go back even further to Rainbow Six and Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear and you have my support 100%.

o WhoCares o
04-24-2009, 08:37 AM
Black Arrow all the way.. loved the clan match ladder system.

04-24-2009, 08:45 AM
It will never happen. UBI only wants to produce games that have amazing cut scenes and animations to fullfill some managers desire to produce TV Shows like "24" and "CSI".

They completely don't care if the mulitplayer code has stripped down options and buggy code. They'll produce only games for the casual players that like magical 3rd person views, health regen, and aim assist.

04-28-2009, 01:42 AM
Worst parts about Vegas are:

- linear gameplay
- scripting
- ingame spawning of tangos

Of course, you are NOT alone. But most long-term R6 fans have moved on, because they don't believe that the situation will improve.

Same for me. I am just checking this forum once a month or so. But I don't really believe that the R6 series will appeal to me again when UBI follows the road they have chosen with Lockdown and Vegas.

04-28-2009, 04:20 PM

04-28-2009, 09:44 PM
I agree. At this rate, I will continue to not buy any more Rainbow Six, or even Ubisoft products for the rest of time.

04-29-2009, 09:24 PM
Seriously? you guys want to go back to the days of lean glinching through meshes, large HUD items that hindered your vision, having only a reticle when your obviously holding an invisible gun?

I bet none of you have any experience with an autocad program such as 3ds max, Maya, Blender, XSI, ect, or even a game engine what so ever. Ubisoft took a big leap on using the Unreal 3 Engine specially since it was one of the first companies to develop a game for it (notice that gears came out roughly about the same time as vegas did).

Now if you have something to compare making a game with an engine you have never touched before, its like driving an 18 wheeler while intoxicated, blindfolded, and putting out cigarete buds on your arms. For them to been able to develop vegas the way they did for their situation, its highly impresive. Yes the game has glinches like every other game out there, and there are aspects of the design that where conflicting with the previous audience.

Now is a company wrong for taking a new direction? no they are not. Not everything you try is going to work out perfectly, but this game is still one of the easiest to play over the xbox live network with the fewest online issues I have seen (I have played almost every shooter out for xbox360).

If its nostalgia you like, that's fine, its great to see companies put in some references to past works in their games, but lets be honest, if they released another Rainbow Six like the first release, it would produce half the earnings Vegas did.

04-29-2009, 10:07 PM
most of us are referring to the concept of the original, not release the same game exactly the way it was (although there are a few that actually want that, i am not one of them).

i loved the original concept.

the whole issue with lean-glitches, clumsy HUD items, and reticule instead of gun view doesnt really have anything to do with the core concept of the original games. those are merely superficial aspects that people get way too hung up over.

im a die hard fan of the original series, but i care nothing of the aesthetic/superficial elements of those games. i'm only concerned about the concpet of the gameplay (emphasizing teamwork and tactics/strategy over "balls-out" action).

of course RSV series does have its fair share of "tactical" elements relative to the other shooters out there, i still feel like the game borrows a bit too much of the "hollywood action" that most mainstream games are inexplicably trying to replicate ("fashion" trend i guess). i dont mind that kind of thing, just not for R6.

i would agree that if they re-released original R6 EXACTLY the way it was with absolutely no change to the original coding or whatever (and only an "update" on the visual element - graphics/textures etc) you arent going to sell as much as you would an original title.

but if they made a brand new game that shared the same SPIRIT and at the very least followed the same concept as the original game there is no doubt in my mind why it wouldnt sell just as many copies as RSV did.

the way i see it, the majority of consumers are going to buy a game if IT IS GOOD. period.

if they made a game with the original concept as R6 and it was a GOOD game, there is no reason why it wouldnt sell well.

the original game wasnt any more difficult than RSV (actually have you played it recently? its easier than RSV is), it just carries a sort of "urban myth" about it that says: "tactical games are clumsy and difficult to learn" - which of course is just BS perpetuated by those who have no idea what they are talking about.

04-30-2009, 09:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Seriously? you guys want to go back to the days of lean glinching through meshes, large HUD items that hindered your vision, having only a reticle when your obviously holding an invisible gun? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I want to go back to a game with a real Stand Alone Dedicated Server, a MAP EDITOR, no 3rd person magical cover view, no health regen, no aim assist, and the ability to lean and go prone....but thank you for asking.

04-30-2009, 09:08 AM
Wildcard is referring to R63/BA for Xbox, which is the best we had on Xbox.

Personally, I'd rather go back to R6/RS style games even for consoles. R6 for N64 had split screen coop, and was a fabulous port of the PC version of R6 and EW.

04-30-2009, 03:46 PM
alright then, here are a couple of facts. Rainbow six is a urban infiltration force. With that said, proning is not a regular action of an urban assault team, reason being, most of the environments leave no real reason to prone unless you are a sniper which in most cases is fairly useless due to the way the maps are designed. Secondly its an extremely glinchy system to get around to fixing the enourmous amount of bugs asociated with it (like COD's and america's army higher jump from prone to standing glinch).

Leaning in the other hand offers another glinch. Hence your player is esentially a cilinder and not a character, leaning can cause players to go through walls and other objects. This is fixable yet involves a lot more hardcore programming (ubisfot can do it I just want to express the diculties of doing such things).

Now the issue leaning causes, is that bullets (in reality beam emitters) spawn from the tip of the weapon rather than from inside the barrel. Here's a possible solution for this. Crate on the weapon 2 sockets, one on the hammers position (where the bullet sits before being fired) and the other on the tip of the weapon. Then to calculate the traget location of the bullets (where the bullet is fired to) get the rotation between the 2 sockets and simply extend it making it so that the bullet would be spawned where it should be fired from and travel toward the barrel's tip and keep the same trajectory.

Secondly, as vegas already has this implemented but with an issue or 2, have the player lower he or her gun if the target distance is obstructed and the distance between the obstruction and the player is less than lets say 1 foot. Also restricking the sight function to do nothing if thats the case, thus not letting players fire through objects because they are currently sighting the weapon (which in reality no one in their right mind would try to sight their weapon if the target is less than 1 foot away.

The editor would be nice for a pc version. For an xbox or ps3 release would be a major pain in the rear. If you want to explore what I am talking about, rent FarCry2. it has an editor in the 360 version, yet it would take 10 times longer to design a map in there than in a regular PC.

I agree with the health regeneration, To be honest I really prefer the AA style. You have 4 basic health states:

Green: Everything works at full potential

Yellow: Your speed and acuracy are reduced

Red: near death, limping speed acuracy lower than yellow

Dead : self Explanatory

And it you take damage, depending on the amount, it can sending you to a bleeding state, where you can bleed from green to yellow, yellow to red, and red to well dead. Players will have an option to pick a medic class (1 for each 5 members of each team) that can control bleeding, bring a player back to life to a yellow state (only once and if the medic reaches the player within a certain amount of time), and treat his or her own injuries. Medics will be able to use their aid ability only 3 times per round / life.

The tactical planning thing was horrible. it was a cool detail to have, but the AI always would mess up, not properly do 360 coverage, take too long to take a shot and other frustrating issues (like getting stuck).

Some of these ideas are not bad, dont get me wrong, but some of these ideas which for most of us in these forums sounds great, to a producer who looks at the selling points before spending a single dime, he is more likely to go along with a game that looks more like halo than the Original R6.

05-01-2009, 07:34 AM
The early days were the best days.

05-01-2009, 03:35 PM
one thing you didnt address about leaning:

they replaced leaning with the new cover system. whatever glitches you are talking about with the leaning system has been replaced with a fundamentally flawed cover system that introduces even more fatal glitches than leaning ever has (i.e. using 3rd person view to shoot through walls)

it doesnt matter though. we are arguing about the wrong thing here. there is nothing wrong with the concept of a leaning or cover system. its only the implementation of both of those has been flawed in every R6 game, new or old.

same with prone, there is nothing wrong with having a prone function in an urban CQB game, its only the implementation of it.

and yes, even the "planning phase". it wasnt a bad idea at all. in fact i think it was a pretty innovative idea. the implementation of it was flawed due to buggy AI and such, but that has nothing to do with the concept of the tactical planner. the idea of the planner was fine, only the coding for the AI was the flaw.

in the Vegas games, you have the point-with-reticule system of plotting waypoints for your teammates. same as in the Original Ghost Recon. but in OGR, you could also press a button to bring out the tactical planner map on the fly and plot a waypoint for your team that you cant physically point your reticule at (making effective use of multiple simultaneous entries).

i dont think anyone here (except maybe a few) is asking for a mandatory tactical planning phase. just the ability to have the OPTION of using the tactical planning map during the game would be awesome. it would have absolutely no impact on the game for those who dont want to use it.

besides, the answer to all of these concerns inst "just take it out of the game". if the developer cant reasonably work around the glitches associated with these game features, it is entirely the fault of the developer not the concept of the game design.

my point was, the original concept of R6 was perfect as is, and very simple. it would have been cool if the developers worked at building on those concepts rather than replacing them.

R6 came out over 10 years ago, and in that time i think they could have easily worked around the issues from those early builds rather than pretending to reinvent the wheel every year and a half.

i agree that progress and evolution are good (and vital) for a game franchise to grow, but i dont really consider the changes from original R6 to Vegas to be progress or evolution. when so many of the features were removed, and so many unrelated features were added.

there just wasnt much "building on" the original concepts, it was mostly a matter of replacing them.

05-01-2009, 04:00 PM
About the prone issue: have you played R6, RS, or RvS? They all had uses for going prone. Mainly sniping.

I remember the second mission in R6 in the jungle where you took out the outside guards from long range.(Cold Thunder?)

05-01-2009, 08:22 PM
you guys may be forgetting something. The rainbow game got split into 2 games. Rainbow Six and Graw. Rainbow six is the urban tactical team (closer to swat) while Graw is more of your army grunt type.

I still stand by my point. Proning is part of any tactical training program, yet I would really say that it belongs to Graw which it is implemented in. Now as far as rainbow goes, its more of a swat based combat. Proning would only add more glinches and allow player's to do some rediculous stuff like go to prone in the middle of a firefight.

Swat 4 didnt implement pronning, they focuses more on AI behavior and it turned out to be prob the most tactical game ever. As you can see thought no plans for a Swat 5 have been made, prob due to a lack of interest by the community.

Alright here a couple of things that I think they could prob fix.

-Flashbangs, have the effect so that players cannot fire while flashed (unrealistic but keeps people from blindfiring their butts off and getting a kill and amplifies the uses of flashbangs). Also having a counter measure to them would be nice.

-Granades and Incidieries. Remove them. Plain and simple, those are military issue equipment which are only in use because colateral damage is really not that significant, but in a Swat stylized operation, a incidiery can easily burn the whole map down and watching them burn for a few seconds then magically burn out is too haloish. Granades in the other hands could seriously damage a building integrity.

-Colors - for the love of god can we get rid of the pink, yellow, bring red, and other bright colors. For a game that its designed to be even movie like tactics, those colors completely distroy any tactical felling when you see a scorping looking guy run right past you.

-Armor - would like to see more army stylized armors. Less heavy armor platting and more tactical ones. Some of those armors are way to big for someone to be walking around at the speed they do. Sugestion, disable running if wearing heavy armor.

-Fix the run and gun glinch. That one is very simple. I am assuming that run is a state in the pawn(character) class. Have the weapon have a delay from the last run time and the shooting time, something like

If( lastruntime + equipping time &gt; worldinfo.time)

That would be an example of how it could be done in UT3, not sure what the game structure looks for R6V because there isnt an editor and opening it up with the UT3 editor does not work really well.

Breaching shottys, have shotguns be able to tear a whole on the handle side of a wooden door and have them stay open afterwards (featured in Swat4).

Lower magazine capacity, I am still trying to figure out where would you fit 10 ak47 magazines on you.

add a better leaning system. K for this one here is the thought process. Left trigger will activate leaning, while holding to the left or right, your character will lean acordenly, then if you hold it and move upwards, the character would go from a triangle stance to a more of a biped stance and evelevate him of her self slightly (to be able to look over different heights of object cover). Pulling back on the stick will bring the character to the original pose. Same system implemented with the crouch state. Moving without the left trigger pulled will move the character and bring him or her back to the original pose. Running from a lean would have a delay, basically player would unlean, walk a step and then run. No one goes from a lean to full speed in less than 0.1 seconds.

Removal of semiauto sniper riffles, The whole point of choosing a sniper rifle is acuracy over distance, but having a sniper rifle have the same amount or relative enough to a semiauto one is ridiculous, without mentioning that the kickback is no nearly enough as it should be.

Adding more burst fire mechanism on weapons that do have them, The infomous Famas has burst fire but in the game only has single and fullauto (disapointing).

Truth of the matter is, that as much as we say we will never buy a ubisoft game ever again or whatever the case may be, they are still the only company to put out a game with a minor set of online issues. I love dark sector, Fracture, Lost Planet, Gears of War, Vampire Rain (was a decent game and the online was interesting in the level design and abilities), and a bunch of other games that said they had online multiplayer but they where all extremely laggy and had tons of tons of network issues. I have never had a problem with rainbow other than maybe lossing packet flow and have to reconnect to the server again (once maybe every 3 months).
At the end of the day though, it doesnt matter cause it is not the game developer's decition, its the producers which prob dont understand jack about picking up a controller and playing a game in the first place.

05-02-2009, 07:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> you guys may be forgetting something. The rainbow game got split into 2 games. Rainbow Six and Graw. Rainbow six is the urban tactical team (closer to swat) while Graw is more of your army grunt type. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

first of all, i have no idea where you pulled this out of. Ghost Recon was introduced about 3 years after R6, GRAW came much later. and while i agree to some extent that once GR became its own franchise they "split up" the environments of each entity to focus more on specific locations (GR being outdoor open combat, and R6 being primarily CQB), the concept behind R6 didnt change at all.

and no R6 wasnt "split" into 2 franchises. GR is its own thing and has conceptually nothing to do with R6, nor is it about "army grunt stuff" either.

re: game mechanics:

i think youve got it really backwards. just my opinion.

but it seems to me that your idea of "fixing" something is to remove it completely. in other words, similar to putting a band aid on a severed artery. you may stop the external bleeding (making it look like everything is ok) but in reality you didnt address the real issue.

so in essence you are trying to make something "realistic" by doing something even more unrealistic (such as removing things from a game).

if you feel that proning shouldnt be done in a game you need to understand what consequences there are in real life for those actions. you implement the consequences into the game, that way you dont see "ridiculous" actions rather than just removing prone completely.

same goes with weapon balancing. the reason why weapons always "have to" be balanced in a video game is because only a few of the attributes of a gun are modeled. such as fire rate, accuracy and damage.

but what about the weapons weight, encumbrance etc.

one of the developers here wrote on these forums that if they modeled each gun accurately according to real world specs, every gun would feel the same and the "best" ones would be the ones with the highest magazine capacity and highest rate fo fire.

seriously, that is one of the saddest things i have ever read when it comes to a developer inadvertently disclosing just how incompetent he really is.

he is basically admitting that he has no knowledge of how a gun works in real life and is totally incapable of recreating one into a game.

in real life, there is no super gun. every piece of equipment or every attribute on a gun has some kind of consequence associated with it.

for example having 100 bullet belt feed has a huge advantage as well as a huge disadvantage. longer barrels, advantage/disadvantage. higher weapon caliber, same thing.

there is no such feature or aspect of a gun that would give you complete advantage with no drawback.

thats why when you model a gun in the digital world, you need to understand what BOTH the pros and cons of every aspect of the gun are.

doesnt matter if you are dealing with bolt action sniper rifles or semi auto ones. there are pros and cons of everything in the real world.

in real life every gun is already NATURALLY "balanced" (through the laws of physics) much better than any developer can model by using artificial tweaking.

it is the developers responsibility to understand the issues, and accurately depict all the pros and cons.

05-03-2009, 12:51 PM
I just looked at the game progess history. The original Rainbow featured a combination of both indoor and outdoor environments. then the sequels where similar but less outdoor environments and then Ghost Recon came out. Then we can start seen an even greater difference between both games. Then we finally got Graw which is nothing more than an updated version of ghost recon. Now what I meant is that the original rainbow was both indoor and outdoor operations. Now we have rainbow for CQB and Ghost Recon for just about everything else.

Removing some of the items may be a simple fix but wouldnt you agree that if you cant get something to work properly, then its much better left out?

I still stand by my point on explosives, many Vegas and Vegas 2 rooms dissable explosives and the gameplay is much better without everyone tossing nades all over the place as if it was halo.

The sniper riffle thing is for one reason. There is no pro to using a bolt action riffle in vegas. It isnt more acurate or anything. While having a semi auto riffle can let you take 6 shots at someone without even loosing them of sight. I rather have the semi auto rifles work like the ones in AA, where both the dragonov and the m82 have enough kickback to toss your view a good 45 to 60 degres upward thus making it hard to take concecutive shots at someone.

I do agree on you that the response on the weapons is really lame. I think I understand the point though, being that everything is CQB, you prob would be able to tell the difference in range from an M16 and an AK47 even though its almost double the range (if I am not mistaken, sorry not much of a gun ho my self by I do try to learn as much as I can about them).

Just one thing, the modelers are not responsible for how the gun works. They only create the model and animations, how the gun works is all up to the programmer's and to be honest, its hard to simulate something you have prob never used in your life. I am really looking foward to AA3. The entire development team went through basic training just to see what it could be like out there in the battlefield. They even took the weapon familiarization and marksman test http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif you should check out their page and see the developer's diaries, I think Ubi could learn a thing or two from them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

05-04-2009, 04:06 AM
RE: grenades

again, the reason why this doesnt work properly is beacuse the developers did not include the realistic consequences of using explosives indoors.

the grenades themselves are not the problem, it is the way they are modeled/programmed.

by the way when i say "modeled" i dont literally mean the 3-D modeling of the object, i mean the way they are re-created in the game. thats not only the visual look of it, but more importantly i mean how it is implemented (i guess "programming" is the more appropriate term)

RE; sniper rifles.

once again, the reason why there is no pro to using a bolt action rifle is exactly the same thing. none of the guns are "programmed" properly and they do not act realistically. the pro's to using a Semi-auto sniper over a bolt action would not be nearly as a clear advantage as it would be in real life (yes, even in relatively "close range" hostage situations).

in real life there should not be a significant differnce in accuracy, damage, recoil or anything else when it comes to semi vs bolt. which is why you see police, SWAT and CT units using both bolt action and semi auto sniper rifles in real life.

in the game you can fire rapidly with a PSG-1 and land several accurate shots in quick succession.

that would not really be possible in real life as the recoil from firing so many shots one after another (without a bipod) would really make it difficult to sight your target after the first shot.

so what developers tend to do is lessen the damage for semi-auto rifles and increase damage or accuracy in bolts... which is obviously totally unrealistic, let alone introduces issues with balancing (ironic that by "artificially balancing" guns, they actually introduce issues that cause unbalancing of those guns to begin with - its like trying to "fix" a broken left leg by breaking the right leg to "balance" the problem).

so, yet AGAIN, it isnt the guns themselves - bolt action or semi auto doesnt make a difference - it is the WAY they are implemnted (programmed) in the game that causes these unrealistic balance issues.

when it comes to sniper rifles, as i understand it, there are different roles.

traditionally a sniper role is to fire from a long distance from a concealed location. in real life sniper units often employ bolt action rifles such as the L96 or M40 because those are very accurate rifles (not accurate because they are bolt, just that they are accurate rifles period).

sometimes a unit will have what is called a Designated Marksman rather than a traditional sniper. what a DMR does is he carries a modified assault rifle (essentially a "semi auto" sniper, sometimes even full auto) and uses the rapid rate of fire not to "ensure more bullets hit the enemy" but rather it used more to suppress very specific targets from further away than an infantry man or a SAW gunner would engage.

semi auto sniper rifles like the PSG1 or M21 can be just as accurate as say an M40 or L96, but it depends on what your application is going to be.

if you need the rate of fire for suppression, you should go with a semi auto.

if you are going for precise sniper fire to take out specific targets from far away, you want a very accurate rifle.

i cant remember the real world specs on each gun but i think that rifles such as the PSG1 and M21 are significantly heavier than an M40 or similar bolt rifle, so why carry the extra weight of a PSG-1 when you dont need the rapid fire? (correct me if i am wrong, and of course im not saying its a definitive "either, or" just typical examples)

these are some of the things that developers never consider and the reason why in a game it ends up making something else obsolete or unrealistic.

05-17-2009, 01:42 PM
definetly should go back to the roots. i shouldnt have to fight a thousand terrorist. you're no longer fighting an isolated insident youre now fighting a counter-insurgency in the united states. so really it should be graw vegas. they forgot rainbow was made for counter-terrorism much like delta force. youre suppose to be in and out of your target area in no longer than 15 miuntes. ubisoft also has a misconception that mercs are just in it for the money. they forget most mercanaries are ex-military personel that would never go against the u.s. government. i wanna go back to shooting terrorist that took over an embasy or a government building never an entire city. especially not in the sates. wheres the redneck coming out of his house telling the terrorist to get off his property. you know it would happen

05-30-2009, 09:54 AM
for whoever wants to play the old rainbow six game they have a dedicated server on igzone.com i would rather bring back this old game than play this vegas bs