Rainbow Six Siege Confirmed To Have No Singleplayer - Polidicks

[img]http://cdn3.whatculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/atvMlWJs.jpg[/img] [url]http://whatculture.com/gaming/rainbow-six-siege-confirmed-to-have-no-single-player-story.php[/url] [quote]“There is no story mode per se. You go through training, where you get to experience different operators and their devices. You can play against enemy AI in co-op through all the maps. You can customise matches, so that’s what we’re offering on the single-player side of things”[/quote] [quote]What is it with modern-day shooters going down the ‘no story’ route? Titanfall, Evolve, Star Wars Battlefront – now Ubisoft’s latest franchise-resurrecting Rainbow Six has just confirmed it’ll be running with a heavy focus on essentially being multiplayer-only. Sure you have access to offline and ‘single player content’ in the form of maps filled with bots, but unlike the cancelled R6: Patriots that looked to be delivering a sold story, Siege will have no such thing.[/quote] [url]https://fat.gfycat.com/AgitatedWeirdAmurstarfish.webm[/url] This game is pretty much destined to be Evolve 2.0.

I mean, Team Fortress 2 and Counter-Strike don't have a single-player mode and I never had any problem with that; I don't see the problem with this game not having any.

[QUOTE=goluffy;48762559]I mean, Team Fortress 2 and Counter-Strike don't have a single-player mode and I never had any problem with that; I don't see the problem with this game not having any.[/QUOTE] Well TF2 is free and cs is 8 euro (which goes on sale quite a lot) while this game is 60 bucks.

To be honest the singleplayer charm of Rainbow Six has been dead or dysfunctional for a long time RSV2 with its cover and customisation was pretty fun at times but also infuriating and riddled with problems like the AI being shit, it was hilariously easy to manipulate them into walking into choke points where you would literally pile up the corpses in a red heap. Rainbow Six 3 was the last time the singleplayer in the series was truly exceptionally fun

doesn't seem that shocking, it [I]is[/I] a game built around multiplayer

Why is anyone complaining about this? The way this game is designed doesn't seem like it would be fun at all for a singleplayer campaign. Also, everyone bitched about how bad the recent Battlefield and CoD campaigns were. Isn't this just a response to the market? They put focus is making the multiplayer better, instead of trying to split focus and make a mediocre singleplayer.

[QUOTE=goluffy;48762559]I mean, Team Fortress 2 and Counter-Strike don't have a single-player mode and I never had any problem with that; I don't see the problem with this game not having any.[/QUOTE] Rainbow Six Siege costs ~£45 while CS:GO is £12 and TF2 is free.

[QUOTE=squids_eye;48762602]Rainbow Six Siege costs ~£45 while CS:GO is £12 and TF2 is free.[/QUOTE] Yea, Siege definitely is overpriced. No way in hell I'm dropping $60's on this based on what I've played in the beta so far.

Rainbow six shield simulator ayyyy

[QUOTE=kill3r;48762624]Rainbow six shield simulator ayyyy[/QUOTE] too bad it isn't raven shield simulator

[QUOTE=-Iker-;48762578]Well TF2 is free and cs is 8 euro (which goes on sale quite a lot) while this game is 60 bucks.[/QUOTE] TF2 is 8 years old, and CS is 3.

Rainbow Six Siege not having singleplayer is not a big deal, really. It's a multiplayer game, and that's it. Better of them to focus their effort on one thing rather than stapling on another mode.

[QUOTE=Ridge;48762672]TF2 is 8 years old, and CS is 3.[/QUOTE] CS:GO costed 9 pre-release date and it had waaaay less content.

[QUOTE=Ax3l;48762687]Rainbow Six Siege not having singleplayer is not a big deal, really. It's a multiplayer game, and that's it. Better of them to focus their effort on one thing rather than stapling on another mode.[/QUOTE] The problem is whether the game is worth the $60 in terms of content, quality and otherwise alone. And considering Ubisoft and modern industry trends, it could very much become another Evolve as mentioned before.

Yeah I don't really get the outrage over this. Why would you want a half-assed singleplayer when they could just focus on making a better multiplayer experience when that's what everyone's going to be playing in the end? Singleplayer is nice, yeah, but it's not absolutely necessary considering today's games. You could argue that the game is overpriced but that's another matter. Adding singleplayer won't suddenly justify the game's price, the game's focus always seemed to be multiplayer so I'm not sure why this is surprising anyone.

[QUOTE=RikohZX;48762714]The problem is whether the game is worth the $60 in terms of content, quality and otherwise alone. And considering Ubisoft and modern industry trends, it could very much become another Evolve as mentioned before.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that's a good point actually. I didn't think about the pricerange.

[QUOTE=t h e;48762717]Yeah I don't really get the outrage over this. Why would you want a half-assed singleplayer when they could just focus on making a better multiplayer experience when that's what everyone's going to be playing in the end? Singleplayer is nice, yeah, but it's not absolutely necessary considering today's games. You could argue that the game is overpriced but adding singleplayer won't justify it's price, either.[/QUOTE] I can understand why there's no singleplayer given what the game is, but then some people are outraged probably because this is the only Rainbow Six game without any singleplayer elements, and it was the unfortunate byproduct of the elimination of an actual single-player Rainbow game.

[quote]What is it with modern-day shooters going down the ‘no story’ route?[/quote] Because the people who play the singleplayer in games that have both are the vast minority. And honestly, I prefer games to be 100% singleplayer or 100% multiplayer. It lets developers focus solely on the core part of the game without having to tack on the other.

[QUOTE=-Iker-;48762578]Well TF2 is free and cs is 8 euro (which goes on sale quite a lot) while this game is 60 bucks.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=squids_eye;48762602]Rainbow Six Siege costs ~£45 while CS:GO is £12 and TF2 is free.[/QUOTE] There was a time that Tf2 costed money too, remember? Granted, only $20, but still.

[QUOTE=Sableye;48762585]doesn't seem that shocking, it [I]is[/I] a game built around multiplayer[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Hinterlight;48762591]Why is anyone complaining about this? The way this game is designed doesn't seem like it would be fun at all for a singleplayer campaign. Also, everyone bitched about how bad the recent Battlefield and CoD campaigns were. Isn't this just a response to the market? They put focus is making the multiplayer better, instead of trying to split focus and make a mediocre singleplayer.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ax3l;48762687]Rainbow Six Siege not having singleplayer is not a big deal, really. It's a multiplayer game, and that's it. Better of them to focus their effort on one thing rather than stapling on another mode.[/QUOTE] These would be great points if not for the fact that this game plays and resembles nothing of a Rainbow Six game. Classes? Suicide bombers? No opening doors? Call of Duty-esque insta-kill melee? Hip firing doesn't punish you? Pretty sure this whole "no SP" thing is just the straw that broke the camel's back.

It might be worth it once it goes on sale but 90aud is a tad bullshit

[QUOTE=Hinterlight;48762591]Why is anyone complaining about this? The way this game is designed doesn't seem like it would be fun at all for a singleplayer campaign. Also, everyone bitched about how bad the recent Battlefield and CoD campaigns were. Isn't this just a response to the market? They put focus is making the multiplayer better, instead of trying to split focus and make a mediocre singleplayer.[/QUOTE] except the multiplayer probably isn't going to be much better and it's definitely not going to be worth $60. if they made it as good as it can possibly be then it would be worth $30 at the most. and you have to remember that this is ubisoft so getting the game plus all the content that should have been in the game to begin with is going to be more like $120.

All I wanted was Rainbow Six: Patriots, instead I get a game that's a crappy ripoff of CSGO and doesn't have singleplayer. Gotta love it when companies kill cool storylines in favor of junk.

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;48763026]except the multiplayer probably isn't going to be much better and it's definitely not going to be worth $60. if they made it as good as it can possibly be then it would be worth $30 at the most. and you have to remember that this is ubisoft so getting the game plus all the content that should have been in the game to begin with is going to be more like $120.[/QUOTE] Totally agree, as it stands the game is a rip-off at $60. $30 would be a much more reasonable price point.

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48763157]All I wanted was Rainbow Six: Patriots, instead I get a game that's a crappy ripoff of CSGO and doesn't have singleplayer. Gotta love it when companies kill cool storylines in favor of junk.[/QUOTE] Patriots was a mess and what they showed of it looked terrible. They were going for a linear cinematic campaign which is not what anyone wants out of a Rainbow Six game. They really didn't know what to do with it and there were so many conflicts with the staff. They went through at least 4 creative leads, including David Sears who worked on SOCOM 1 and 2.

Activision revealed that Black Ops 3 won't have a single player campaign either today too. Looks like this is just the way it's going to be going forward.

[QUOTE=Steel & Iron;48763431]Activision revealed that Black Ops 3 won't have a single player campaign either today too. Looks like this is just the way it's going to be going forward.[/QUOTE] That's only for the 360 and PS3 versions. And it's 10-20 bucks cheaper. Completely different.

This game is obviously made for 5v5 arena style combat, did anyone really ever think there was going to be a single player?

I thought they said this when it was first announced

[QUOTE=goluffy;48762559]I mean, Team Fortress 2 and Counter-Strike don't have a single-player mode and I never had any problem with that; I don't see the problem with this game not having any.[/QUOTE] Those games also weren't $60 on launch. That price for a multiplayer only game is a bit much in my opinion.