"Rainbow Six is an international intervention group"....uh, dont you mean Rainbow? | Forums

[Cortexian]

I don't agree with anything you just said about them somehow disrespecting Tom Clancy's name with their latest games.

Your points about Advanced Warfare and Future Soldier have no validity since these are FICTIONAL games BASED on reality. It's an alternate reality if you will. In fiction, everything is possible and it's entirely up to the creator to determine what is, and is not, going to happen. I enjoyed GRAW, GRAW 2, Future Soldier (after they patched the major release bugs), and Ghost Recon Online/Phantoms. They are excellent games.

I can't speak to Vegas or Vegas 2 since I haven't played a lot of them.

The bottom line here is that there are obviously a lot of gamers out there, and no matter how hard Ubisoft tries, they can't satisfy everyone. They need to pick a game, develop it how they think it will be popularly received while holding to their design principals, and then release it. Some people will like it, others will not. Your complaints seem to be rooted entirely in the fact that you PERSONALLY didn't like the points you mentioned, not that they were bad and could of been done better.

[Kaiskune]

you can disagree all you want, my opinion is my own, yours is yours respectfully

Ghost recon is as you say a fictional series based on reality... oh wait... you really think America will create perfect optical camouflage but 2020 and Russia is so backwards they'd have to steal and backward engineer it in order to level the playing field? you might want to read Clancy's books too~ in the vast majority the US is far from the master and commander of the world in the lands of technology.
Try playing Ghost recon and its expansions, Ghost recon 2 and Summit Strike, Now go back to GRAW 1 and 2 and FS and tell me which games in that line up are worth playing over and over again. In fact put it to a poll on the GR forum. I am more than a little confident the vast majority was say the older games are still worth playing after all their years since their initial release (and in some case still are being played online today) Using game ranger and other 3rd party server sites Ghost recon players still play the older games in abundance. many moding the hell out of GRAW 1 and 2 to take it as close to the orignal as possible.

the same applies to Rainbow Six, go back to Red Storms days and play the original and its expansions hell play R63: raven shield Ubisoft's last good Rainbow Six. they were challenging, tense and very mentally intensive. just try to claim the same about Vegas 1 and 2 to some of the older fans who have followed the series since day 1, they would laugh you out of the proverbial building.

There was a time where the Tom Clancy's insignia was a sign that the game you held in your grubby mitts was going to be challenging, mentally engaging and worth the months of afternoons and weekends you'd put into mastering the dynamic and intriguing campaigns Red Storms Developers had worked into the game.
when I saw that symbol back then I knew that the game in my hands was worth the miles I racked up on paper rounds to earn the money for that game

the same cannot be said for Ubisoft's efforts today who have destroyed the Niche market Red storm worked so hard to create and maintain simplifying both series down to Impulse shooters and gimmick reliance.
GRAW 1 and 2 were both mediocre lacking the flexible and tactical freedom of its predecessors..
Future Soldier could could and SHOULD have been better for the amount of time it was delayed for refinement and polishing. a game that was 2+ years in development and 9+ months delayed was about 8 months worth of work in the end, a 5 hour campaign of blockbuster movie action screen pays with a little actual game play in between and a hardest difficulty so easy my 3 year niece you easily breeze the game.
EndWar...I love! seriously i still play it regularly today offline but I know full well it was not a true success for ubisoft. branching off into a genre that unfortunately meant EndWar was over shadowed by another of Ubisofts games, World in conflict

yes I agree no games developer will ever satesfy every consumer, but that does not mean that Ubisoft needed to destroy the reputation of the Tom Clancy brand in order to attract the fan base of certain bigger far less mentally intensive games. Ubisoft Alienated and drove away a huge amount of its fan base and I doubt many will come back.

THAT is why I believe they are not doing Tom Clancy's legacy justice in any shape or form.

[Cortexian]

you can disagree all you want, my opinion is my own, yours is yours respectfully

This was exactly my point. Opinions differ, I'm not trying to change your opinion or say that your opinion is wrong. An opinion cannot by definition be "wrong".

Ghost recon is as you say a fictional series based on reality... oh wait... you really think America will create perfect optical camouflage but 2020 and Russia is so backwards they'd have to steal and backward engineer it in order to level the playing field? you might want to read Clancy's books too~ in the vast majority the US is far from the master and commander of the world in the lands of technology.

As I said, it's an alternate reality BASED on reality. This gives the developers freedom to explore avenues that AREN'T realistic. As someone who worked EXTREMELY closely with the Ghost Recon Online / Phantoms developers I can tell you that the development principals for a Tom Clancy / Ghost Recon game dictate that all of the "future tech" must be rooted in existing research or active development. Individual, vehicular, and aircraft cloaking systems have been in development for a long time. There are even working prototypes for vehicles that work semi-decent already. Tech for the individual will become possible as technology continues to grow smaller and more efficient. Do I personally think it will happen by 2020? Probably not. Do I think it'll happen in my lifetime? Definitely.

There's some other tech on those games that's a little more farfetched than cloaking that you could of brought up to make your point though. Like energy shields that block projectiles but allow people or other slower moving objects to pass through them. As cool as those are, they're entirely Sci-Fi. Even the justification from the internal documentation on that particular system was flimsy on Ubisoft's part (they referenced ship-based anti-missile systems that shoot down incoming missiles in a "bubble" shape around the ship).

I've read the Ghost Recon and Rainbow 6 novels. No need for me to read them again IMO.

Try playing Ghost recon and its expansions, Ghost recon 2 and Summit Strike, Now go back to GRAW 1 and 2 and FS and tell me which games in that line up are worth playing over and over again. In fact put it to a poll on the GR forum. I am more than a little confident the vast majority was say the older games are still worth playing after all their years since their initial release (and in some case still are being played online today) Using game ranger and other 3rd party server sites Ghost recon players still play the older games in abundance. many moding the hell out of GRAW 1 and 2 to take it as close to the orignal as possible.

the same applies to Rainbow Six, go back to Red Storms days and play the original and its expansions hell play R63: raven shield Ubisoft's last good Rainbow Six. they were challenging, tense and very mentally intensive. just try to claim the same about Vegas 1 and 2 to some of the older fans who have followed the series since day 1, they would laugh you out of the proverbial building.

I said I enjoyed GRAW, GRAW2, Future Soldier, and Phantoms... I didn't say I enjoyed them more or less than the previous games (which I have also played, and still occasionally play with friends when I can get them together for LAN parties and the like). I've also played ALL of the original Rainbow 6 games, and I'd agree that Ravenshield was much more fun, challenging, and tactical than Vegas or Vegas 2 (based on my very limited hands-on experience and what I've heard/seen on YouTube). I would much rather see Siege be closer to Ravenshield from a gameplay perspective, but have all of the modern improvements that have been made in Vegas and Vegas 2. I'm talking technical improvements here, disregard everything you perceive as negative about those games.

There was a time where the Tom Clancy's insignia was a sign that the game you held in your grubby mitts was going to be challenging, mentally engaging and worth the months of afternoons and weekends you'd put into mastering the dynamic and intriguing campaigns Red Storms Developers had worked into the game.
when I saw that symbol back then I knew that the game in my hands was worth the miles I racked up on paper rounds to earn the money for that game

the same cannot be said for Ubisoft's efforts today who have destroyed the Niche market Red storm worked so hard to create and maintain simplifying both series down to Impulse shooters and gimmick reliance.

I agree with your sentiments here. But I think there's more to the Tom Clancy label that what you've stated. IMO anything with the Tom Clancy label should be held to a standard of accuracy above the rest when it comes to research on real-world tactics, firearms, equipment, etc... One of the things that made the Clancy novels so believable was his immaculate knowledge and years of research into tactical operators in both military and law enforcement service. When I pick up a Clancy game, I expect above all else, to be wow'd by the accuracy of the equipment my character is wearing, the gun (s)he is holding, and the vehicles (s)he's exiting.

yes I agree no games developer will ever satesfy every consumer, but that does not mean that Ubisoft needed to destroy the reputation of the Tom Clancy brand in order to attract the fan base of certain bigger far less mentally intensive games. Ubisoft Alienated and drove away a huge amount of its fan base and I doubt many will come back.

THAT is why I believe they are not doing Tom Clancy's legacy justice in any shape or form.

I agree with you on this. I personally believe that the Clancy series should stick to its niche roots instead of trying to cater to the larger audiences. Unfortunately, that's not a realistic development strategy. They NEED to push this game and all future Clancy games to appeal to the mainstream CS: GO, Battlefield, and COD gamer if they want the series to survive. Investors and stockholders don't take it well when their investments for development don't make a profit.

That said, there are ways to appeal to the mainstream audience while also sticking to the roots of the game. Only time will tell if Ubisoft actually manages to pull this off.

[the_oper8r]

I am trying really hard not to take sides here so keep that in mind. Phantoms in my opinion, became trash as soon as it was changed from Ghost Recon Online to Phantoms. It is teamwork based but it is in no way a good Ghost Recon game and it was a downright disappointment due to too much of it being pay to win and the fact that nothing besides the weapon types and a few of the devices were realistic. The 'story' was seemed like it was ripped from Call Of Duty, the armor they wore simply made them look like mercenaries and not elite US forces, and majority of they weapons would never be in the hands of US soldier (I may seem nitpicking here but authenticity is like you said a big thing in Clancy games). Not to mention the horrendous armor and weapon tiers system along with the lack of balancing. Literally the only thing I enjoyed was the Beta and the Splinter Cell crossover. Future Soldier (which I did enjoy) was a good game but it was a below average Ghost Recon game. It's not the future tech or equipment that annoyed me but it is the fact that Ubisoft tried to appeal to too many fan bases and ended up taking away the things that made it Ghost Recon. No squad control, linear maps and that cover system. They made the same mistake with Vegas 1&2 and with Splinter Cell Conviction, trying to be popular with the mainstream crowd. Ubi partially redeemed themselves with Blacklist and Siege seems to be looking better than Vegas. So Ubisoft is in a bit of the right direction. However any and all problems concerning Rainbow Six Siege being 'mainstream' or 'CoD like' need to be fixed now if they still want to appeal to original fans. This means making no mistakes with the identification of the unit (RAINBOW not Rainbow 6, not anything but Rainbow), having they team live up to its name, (it's not Rainbow if it's not international), fixing that e-sports looking gun patch on their uniforms, and making them seem like they are international and not just advanced cops (otherwise this game will be grouped as another Battlefield Hardline). Not to mention the core gameplay that made the game realistic, tactical and skill requiring opposed to just the necessity of twitch reactions. I'm sure of Ubisoft can pull of Siege of they do respect the Clancy title and don't try to appeal to the masses.

[Cortexian]

Yes, Phantoms went downhill fast as the developers consistently avoided or didn't listen to their community representatives and made decisions based off making a profit instead of making a fun game. That's why I quit their community council. There wasn't any point when they were completely disregarding major issues and only fixing things or changing things if it allowed them to profit from it.

Technically the game isn't Pay 2 Win at all, but realistically it might as well be. The time you need to put into the game to buy things that some players have which make them significantly more powerful than you without said item is not realistic to expect from a player. Heck, as someone who spent every waking hour playing the beta and set his alarm clock to the opening theme song on weekends to get extra game time in, I wouldn't even be able to meet some of the free player earning requirements to purchase certain items right now.

So yes, that part of GRP is horrible. The monetization direction.

I can't agree with you about it not being a good Ghost Recon game. In my opinions it's light years ahead of Future Soldier (which exists solely to try and lure in some of the CoD crowd IMO) when it comes to tactical game play. Teamwork is essential in GRP, and there's a lot of thought that needs to go into coordinating device pushes and defends.

The original art direction when the game was Ghost Recon Online looked very militaristic, however the new armor style makes them look a lot more like mercenaries. That kind of makes sense though, considering that mercenaries are typically running fewer people with higher funding per person. Mercenaries have access to whatever kind of gear they think is best, and a lot of it is picked up by the military in the future as standard issue kit once it has been proven. As for the different weapons, Ghosts are what I like to call "tier 0" special forces operators. They operate completely outside of public knowledge and get whatever equipment they need or want like many other special forces groups. It makes sense that they'd have a large variety of weapons and equipment at their disposal. Many real world scenarios of special forces using every kind of weapon imaginable on missions for various reasons.

I'm not to sure what "story" you are referring to that you think the Ghost Recon Online / Phantoms team "ripped" from Call Of Duty... There isn't really a story in that game aside from what the trailers imply and the map descriptions indicate.

Sorry, had to defend the aspects of GRP that don't totally suck in my mind.

Hopefully the Siege devs understand the VALUE of community feedback and want to continue to make this game the best it can be AFTER the game is released. I'd love to see them promote some of the more active/notable members of this community to help advise them on everything from making the game more appealing to new players, while also allowing for more dynamic and advanced gameplay at the high level. It can be hard to balance these two extremes, but if game type customization is a thing we may be able to do, or even just hosting our own servers to impose skill restrictions, that would be glorious.

Here's hoping that Ubisoft has learned from some of their mistakes with recent titles like Ghost Recon Phantoms, Future Soldier, Watch_Dogs, Assassin's Creed: Unity, etc... Hopefully they fix all the problems those games suffered from and produce something amazing with Siege (and The Division as well I hope).

[Cortexian]

So I have confirmation that the team will be transitioning all of the "6" logo patches over to the correct team Rainbow patches.

The team has already updated their Twitter banner:
https://twitter.com/rainbow6game

Slightly better version clearly showing the correct patch:

[pedropbc]

I miss the old r6 and gr games, i miss old Red Storm. I loved the slow paced tactical feel. But know is everything fast as COD.