Rainbow Six Siege Confirmed To Have No Singleplayer - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Keychain;48762530]This game is pretty much destined to be Evolve 2.0.[/QUOTE] Except all future maps are free.

and we only GOT two fucking free maps in evolve.

[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] Team fortress 2 and counter strike don't have a couple decades of single player stories in their franchise.

game looks boring in all honesty. It's way too slow and has a lot of camping. CS has a good balance, the game is slow paced but it isn't snails pace and rounds can be fast if you make them. In this there's just way too many player obstacles to traverse. I would of liked it if I were 13 but I think I'll just stick to CS:GO.

[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 wasn't free on launch.

[QUOTE=ashxu;48764043]game looks boring in all honesty. It's way too slow and has a lot of camping. [/QUOTE]A game with the word "Siege" a major part of its title involves sitting in one place while other people try to get to you? I wouldn't have imagined it. The game is slow during the set up, then once shit goes down its an entirely different story where everything is a frantic fire fight to not get hit while also actually hitting the other team, and trying not to break something you shouldn't be breaking, like the hostage.

My favorite thing to play is Terrorist Hunt, so as long as that gets plenty of content I'm okay. Never was a fan of the adversarial modes in Rainbow Six games.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;48764289]A game with the word "Siege" a major part of its title involves sitting in one place while other people try to get to you? I wouldn't have imagined it.[/QUOTE] are you seriously gonna do this because a name is just a name

Multiplayer experiences shouldn't have tacked on single player parts and single player experiences shouldn't have tacked on multiplayer parts. Good move.

[QUOTE=ashxu;48764521]are you seriously gonna do this because a name is just a name[/QUOTE] So by "Siege" it should have meant F1 Racing game, right?

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;48764686]So by "Siege" it should have meant F1 Racing game, right?[/QUOTE] Because by name in Crysis all you do is suffer a crisis.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;48764777]Because by name in Crysis all you do is suffer a crisis.[/QUOTE]If you want to go that route, yeah, its about preventing a potentially apocalyptic level disaster. Especially with subtitles, games tend to relate them to something actually relevant to the game itself, even in abstract ways. Half-Life: Blue Shift and Half-Life: Opposing Force? Play as the blue-clad security guard there for his daily shift. Play as a member of the literal opposing force of the original game. DotA. Defense of the Ancients. Half of the game is about defending your ancient because the other team wants to destroy your ancient. Call of Duty, especially from 4 onward. By and large describe the particular world or warfare. Modern Warfare, Advanced Warfare. Or occasionally your role. Black Ops.

PREORDER CANCELLED UBISOFT KILLS YET ANOTHER BELOVED FRANCHISE, BIG SURPRISE In all seriousness though my main problem with this game is it's title. Gameplay is decent but it's not Rainbow Six at all. Just call it "The Siege: Tactical Squad Simulator" or something and all will be well.

[QUOTE=Ridge;48762672]TF2 is 8 years old, and CS is 3.[/QUOTE] TF2 cost £15 on release as did CSGO, both offered a more focused experience than Siege even if there was less superficial content. I'd prefer Siege dropped the progressions systems and modern military aspects and focused more on competitive 5v5 to rival CSGO, sometimes more is less like in the case of MMFPS games where a constant slew of unlocks devalue the game for guys like me.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;48764600]Multiplayer experiences shouldn't have tacked on single player parts and single player experiences shouldn't have tacked on multiplayer parts. Good move.[/QUOTE] The earlier Rainbow Six games (Raven Shield) did single player and multi-player great. It helps that they also have the backing of Tom Clancy's writing to put together a good story. As someone who was looking forward to the Patriots storyline, the complete lack of a single player is extra disappointing.

It's actually a pretty decently fun game, to tell the truth. Maybe it's not really Rainbow Six, but was Vegas?

[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;48763742]Except all future maps are free.[/QUOTE] You literally just provided another reason why it's like Evolve lol

[QUOTE=Simplemac3;48765065]It's actually a pretty decently fun game, to tell the truth. Maybe it's not really Rainbow Six, but was Vegas?[/QUOTE] Vegas was still an R6 game. The premise was more over-the-top, but the fundamentals of R6 stood true. 1-2 shot kills, one mistake means you're boned, a lot of weapons/customization to choose from. Siege is very lacking in content right now. There's barely any customization and what little there is only involves a few options here and there. There's only one DMR-type rifle in the game, each country has its own generic assault rifle, SMG, and shotgun. That's about it. For comparison, Vegas 2 had a solid handful of assault rifles, LMGs, sniper rifles, SMGs, and pistols to choose from. All of which felt different and had their perks. For fuck's sake, you can't even change your firing mode (single shot, burst, full auto) in Siege. Siege just feels really lazy, like a cash-in on the modern matchmaking shooter craze. It's really disappointing.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;48762580]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[/QUOTE] R6V was better than V2. I don't know what happened with V2 but god damn, everything was so janky from start to finish with that game. It lacked any of the polish of an already unpolished game. [editline]26th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;48767907]siege feels way more like r6 than vegas did most kills are 2-3 shots in regular mp (though the enemies are really tough for no reason in terrorist hunt) and theres no third person cover system which imo turned vegas 1/2 into completely different games anyone whos played the vegas 1/2 mps should know that those games played absolutely nothing like classic r6, siege keeps a few elements in the very least (coordinating with your team will win you the game, for one, which was not present in vegas since it was more about who got the most kills)[/QUOTE] Yeah they were a much different style of game than most of the older R6 games. I played R6 one competitively on several different websites when that game was at it's peak, and it was a very challenging shooter at that level and it actually played more like old school games due to the amount of waiting and map control that the game came down to but it was never designed like that so it was never as good. But I maintain that at a high skill level, that game was magical, but still not as good as R6 Black Arrow or the likes.

[QUOTE=ashxu;48764521]are you seriously gonna do this because a name is just a name[/QUOTE] Are you dense. Its attack/defend gameplay lmfao, clearly they named it to be representative of the gameplay [editline]26th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=MaverickIB;48767731]Vegas was still an R6 game. The premise was more over-the-top, but the fundamentals of R6 stood true. 1-2 shot kills, one mistake means you're boned, a lot of weapons/customization to choose from. Siege is very lacking in content right now. There's barely any customization and what little there is only involves a few options here and there. There's only one DMR-type rifle in the game, each country has its own generic assault rifle, SMG, and shotgun. That's about it. For comparison, Vegas 2 had a solid handful of assault rifles, LMGs, sniper rifles, SMGs, and pistols to choose from. All of which felt different and had their perks. For fuck's sake, you can't even change your firing mode (single shot, burst, full auto) in Siege. Siege just feels really lazy, like a cash-in on the modern matchmaking shooter craze. It's really disappointing.[/QUOTE] Vegas is as far off from r6 as r6 has ever been....

Vegas is a continuation from Lockdown, that part when all fell apart. Create a new IP and do shit there, you can even call it "From creators of Rainbow Six series" or something.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;48768509]but that would also be a lie, i dont really think anyone from the raven shield days are still working in that studio[/QUOTE] Series was at their peak with Rogue Spear IMO. Also, Raven Shield managed to produce really stupid teammate AI (and godawful ragdolls).

[QUOTE=squids_eye;48762602]Rainbow Six Siege costs ~£45 while CS:GO is £12 and TF2 is free.[/QUOTE] Those are both source engine games, one of which is 8 years old.

Why is anyone price comparing with Valve in the first place, they've never charged full AAA price for a video game before, they always release a bit cheaper. IIRC the highest they've charged for any of their games was $40 for L4D2 or Portal 2 (meanwhile AAA prices are $60). I mean I'd like it if companies went Valve's way, but using Valve as a comparison isn't very meaningful considering they aren't exactly representative of the norm in AAA game development

Charging $60 for a multiplayer only game is a sure fire way of killing its chances before it leaves the gate. Look at Evolve and Titanfall, both high quality games, both multiplayer only, both $60. Both dead in a couple of months (or less in Evolves case).

Even though they say that beta doesn't represent final quality of the product, please, it's fucking Ubisoft we're talking about - right now game doesn't worth even 10$. It will be an interesting fad that will fade out in couple weeks. UNLESS they suddenly proclaim 'no paid DLC', full SDK support and mapmaking and a price cut. Which won't happen. This actually reminds me, Ubisoft, as always, didn't invent anything new, I recall old maps for CS 1.3 back from the day, something like cs_5star or something where gimmick was that you can destroy roof (which you can't in Siege), walls and floor as CTs for multiple points of entry.

[QUOTE=maniacykt;48770941]Even though they say that beta doesn't represent final quality of the product, please, it's fucking Ubisoft we're talking about -[B] right now game doesn't worth even 10$. [/B] It will be an interesting fad that will fade out in couple weeks. UNLESS they suddenly proclaim 'no paid DLC', full SDK support and mapmaking and a price cut. Which won't happen. This actually reminds me, Ubisoft, as always, didn't invent anything new, I recall old maps for CS 1.3 back from the day, something like cs_5star or something where gimmick was that you can destroy roof (which you can't in Siege), walls and floor as CTs for multiple points of entry.[/QUOTE] Why exactly do you think this? It's a pretty solid experience so far. Gameplay seems fine and polished in my opinion. It's hell of a lot better than the slew of generic military shooters on the market. Seems to be pretty well optimized as well. Once again, better than a certain Ubisoft game.

I can't say it's going to be like Evolve because Evolve's big problem wasn't that it had no singleplayer, but that the game became incredibly dull due to bad game design. Every round typically boiled down to the exact same experience every time, and if either side was too good at the game then it completely ruined the experience for the other.

The game actually managed to run at a mildly playable framerate on my computer so I'm happy. It's pretty well optimized. [quote]For fuck's sake, you can't even change your firing mode (single shot, burst, full auto) in Siege.[/quote]It might've just been introduced, idk, but I could do it by just pressing B. While I wouldn't pay 60 USD for the game, I think it's quite fun, even in beta. Even the single player terrorist hunt isn't a bad experience. A big problem I've had with a lot of other FPS's was that shooting and killing felt boring and unsatisfying (which is why I basically play only CS:GO these days), but it's quite nice in this game. I would prefer this game to most other FPSs out there, like CoD and Battlefield. It's really not a bad game. I think the biggest issue about the price is that the game's simply just too narrow to warrant 60 bucks. in CS:GO, if you buy the game for 15 bucks, you're guaranteed a wide variety of maps and gamemodes to play on (competitive/casual, dm, arms race, community versions of competitive, dm and gungame, surf, bhop, kz, and more), but for Siege, it's 60 bucks for two relatively similar gamemodes in a variety of cramped, claustrophobic places. If there's one thing I dislike though, it's the maps. I was never a fan of small, claustrophobic maps that expose you to 30 different angles anywhere you walk, but I guess that's part of the gameplay. I think it's a shame that Siege won't have a proper singleplayer since I really enjoyed Raven Shield's for whatever reason, but it's probably better that they try to make a more focused product. I kinda don't get all the hate though. I mean yeah sure, it's pretty overpriced, but if I were to play an FPS other than CS:GO, this would be it for me. I can understand people being upset about certain things, but I think some of you overblow it. Like, [quote]right now game doesn't worth even 10$.[/quote] seriously? Like, I don't like Ubisoft much personally either and actually expected a shoddy experience from the game initially, but I don't think it's as generic and broken as some of you make it out to be. really sucks that you can't fucking open doors though like srs wtf where are the fucking doors

From the experience I had in the spring beta, and what I've read since then, I'd say it'd be worth $30 to $40 soundly. It was definitely fun, I had no real major complaints about it gameplay wise. But its going to always have serious content and community issues.