Rainbow Six Siege Confirmed To Have No Singleplayer - Polidicks

Agreed. This game gets a bunch of slack it doesn't deserve in my opinion.

I think the complaints come from the price. I wouldn't pay 60 bucks for a mediocre multiplayer game.

[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] TF2 and CS come from a time where multiplayer on PC was still at its baby steps. They stuck around because they were the first good multiplayer mods to come out, and their formula is so simple it can work forever. Nowadays the competition is huge and vicious. Releasing a multiplayer only game is a pretty daring gamble and it's one you're very likely to lose.

I wasn't expecting this to have SP, but 60 bucks?? Seriously? Do they not know why Titanfall and Evolve flopped?

Battlefield 2142 never had a singleplayer story, and was sold at AAA price, and was a blast. I don't have any qualms with them focusing on the gameplay rather than putting resources towards a writing team and extra animators and voice talent etc. [editline]28th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Mechwarrior;48773940]I think the complaints come from the price. I wouldn't pay 60 bucks for a mediocre multiplayer game.[/QUOTE] Well wait until it releases and decide for yourself if you find it mediocre or not??

[QUOTE=paul simon;48764060]TF2 wasn't free on launch.[/QUOTE] TF2 wasn't ever sixty dollars.

I don't know what you guys are complaning about.The games going to be worth the price once its released. Its planned to have 10 maps, 5 gamemodes more weapons/classes. Thats way more content then evolve or titanfall

[QUOTE=dark soul;48783348]I don't know what you guys are complaning about.The games going to be worth the price once its released. Its planned to have 10 maps, 5 gamemodes more weapons/classes. Thats way more content then evolve or titanfall[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter that content is coming in the future, if there isn't a lot of content at release to justify the $60 then the playerbase is going to fall, fast.

[QUOTE=Ridge;48762672]TF2 is 8 years old, and CS is 3.[/QUOTE] CS as a franchise is much older than that though.

[QUOTE=dark soul;48783348]I don't know what you guys are complaning about.The games going to be worth the price once its released. Its planned to have 10 maps, 5 gamemodes more weapons/classes. Thats way more content then evolve or titanfall[/QUOTE] I don't know about maps, but Titanfall has a fuckton of gamemodes and way more weapons/customization than Siege has. Unless they dumb a truck's worth of content into it out of the blue, they're not really matching content levels there. And the maps are just singular large buildings with a bunch of pre-designated breakable windows and doors. The 3 playable maps right now are basically the same goddamn thing.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48784279]I don't know about maps, but Titanfall has a fuckton of gamemodes and way more weapons/customization than Siege has. Unless they dumb a truck's worth of content into it out of the blue, they're not really matching content levels there. And the maps are just singular large buildings with a bunch of pre-designated breakable windows and doors. The 3 playable maps right now are basically the same goddamn thing.[/QUOTE] Titan fall had like 4 Mechs with limited customization at release which was the whole point of the game and half the game modes were horrible. Everyone just stuck to the main gamemode so you couldn't even find games for the other ones. At least with this game, the 3 games modes you could play so far have been really fun. The game had far less weapons (10 Primary vs 18 primary|3 sidearms vs 6 sidearms) to choose from even though this games in beta and doesn't even have all its classes yet.

[QUOTE=MaverickIB;48784279]I don't know about maps, but Titanfall has a fuckton of gamemodes and way more weapons/customization than Siege has. Unless they dumb a truck's worth of content into it out of the blue, they're not really matching content levels there. And the maps are just singular large buildings with a bunch of pre-designated breakable windows and doors. The 3 playable maps right now are basically the same goddamn thing.[/QUOTE] To be fair, the 3 playable maps right now are for the same gamemode... who would've thought that they'd have similar map structure? Also, the point of Siege is that CTs are trying to take back a building that the Ts have conquered. I'm not sure what kind of maps you're expecting from a game like Siege where the gameplay's focal point is quite literally breach and clear (which is fun, mind you). Each maps design fits Siege's destruction-based, breach-and-clear gameplay very well.

As I recall, Siege is supposed to have 15 maps on launch. Don't remember how many Titanfall had. One thing TF2 and Counter Strike have over other multiplayer games though is not just the history, its the open nature of them. Want 32 player servers? You've got them. Want to make a silly game mode? Go right ahead. Wanna make your own maps? Have fun. Even if the base game gets old, the community can continue to build on to it. They also lack strict leveling schemes. Right out of the gate you have, for all intents and purposes, access to every weapon and every class and every tool. Ok, sure, some you have to buy, trade, or get as a drop, but you're not actually locked out of them. It's not like you start with the Soldier and have to hit level three to play Scout, level five before you can play a Medic, level eight to play Heavy, level ten to play Engineer, Level 20 to play Pyro, etc. You're unrestricted from the beginning. As opposed to other multiplayer dominated games of strict leveling and unlock paths. Its why I don't really play Call of Duty, Battlefield, things like that any more. I'm tired of leveling in my multiplayer shooters just to have to do it again for the next game. Why would I want to keep starting over from scratch all the time? There came a point in playing Battlefield 3 where I stopped playing for a long time simply because I realized a major reason I was playing was that a gun I liked and wanted was level locked. I wasn't really enjoying everything else leading up to that because I felt like I really couldn't do what I wanted with my character. And whenever I tried to grind hard to get it quick, it went from dislike to outright hatred. I eventually came back, dragged myself through and got that gun. You know what happened? I actually started to enjoy it. Ended up putting more time in after I got what I wanted and could do what I wanted than I did during the slog to level my character. [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] Honestly, I kinda think strict upgrading schemes are going to contribute to shooters falling off hard. Hell, they kinda are already. Interest in the next Call of Duty isn't spectacular. Do people even care if Battlefield gets another game, especially after Hardline bombed? Titanfall is dead. Market saturation hasn't helped either. Lack of freedom for content creators is definitely keeping them from having extended life cycles and diverse communities. And the upgrade schemes are a major contributor to developers restricting content creators. Do you want to let players make their own maps or gamemodes where they could possibly just make a powerleveling one and max out everything instantly?

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;48785489] Honestly, I kinda think strict upgrading schemes are going to contribute to shooters falling off hard. Hell, they kinda are already. Interest in the next Call of Duty isn't spectacular. Do people even care if Battlefield gets another game, especially after Hardline bombed? Titanfall is dead. Market saturation hasn't helped either. Lack of freedom for content creators is definitely keeping them from having extended life cycles and diverse communities. And the upgrade schemes are a major contributor to developers restricting content creators. Do you want to let players make their own maps or gamemodes where they could possibly just make a powerleveling one and max out everything instantly?[/QUOTE] It's because they are designed for consoles first. Console games need levels and all that crap, not modding. Once a game is sold, unless it has microtransactions like tf2/csgo, it is done. It does not matter after the initial sale. Modding prolongs a game, which means it needs some other payment model to bring in profit.

I'm going to be blunt about this. This is going to flop hard. Really hard. The leveling system constricts counterpicking ability (which is pretty important in an ability-driven game like this), along with having no functional reasoning to it at the moment. There'll possibly be a premium currency unveiled, R6 coins or something stupid like that. The netcode is garbage. It's absolute trash. Matchmaking just straight-up doesn't work, no matter the amount of users playing or not. In-game feels like it's on a 5hz update tickrate on damage and seems client-authoritative as well, which end up with enemies shooting you through the walls etc. The decision to put voice chat and messaging on a single 'host' client doesn't work too well. Host migrations often end up dropping half or all of the party out of the game. Balance decisions are more or less all over the place as well. There's little reason to not bring as many shields as possible, when hipfire pistols are this accurate and have higher damage value than rifles and SMGs for no reason. Slap a laser sight and you become difficult-to-kill herald of death.

[QUOTE=Fippe;48785610]I'm going to be blunt about this. This is going to flop hard. Really hard. The leveling system constricts counterpicking ability (which is pretty important in an ability-driven game like this), along with having no functional reasoning to it at the moment. There'll possibly be a premium currency unveiled, R6 coins or something stupid like that. The netcode is garbage. It's absolute trash. Matchmaking just straight-up doesn't work, no matter the amount of users playing or not. In-game feels like it's on a 5hz update tickrate on damage and seems client-authoritative as well, which end up with enemies shooting you through the walls etc. The decision to put voice chat and messaging on a single 'host' client doesn't work too well. Host migrations often end up dropping half or all of the party out of the game. Balance decisions are more or less all over the place as well. There's little reason to not bring as many shields as possible, when hipfire pistols are this accurate and have higher damage value than rifles and SMGs for no reason. Slap a laser sight and you become difficult-to-kill herald of death.[/QUOTE] I seriously hated it in Bad Company 2 when I had to play for several hours just to be able to do what I was supposed to in my role. Such as jesusing people with shockpads, repairing vehicles and throwing motion sensors. All behind many hours of play. As an aspiring game-dev I don't understand what makes professional game-devs think of this as a good design-choice.

As long as I can play by myself against bots why would I care? This game is developed entirely around a round-by-round gameplay. You can't have a story mode for a game focused on what RSS focuses on. [editline]29th September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;48785489] CS2 and TF2[/QUOTE] The issue with that argument is that Rainbow Six is and likely always will be focused on the console gamers. It's impossible to have effective community development outside of the PC community. I don't think this game will flop as hard as everyone expects. It fills a very specific niche. I think you could look at a game like Rocket League and draw comparisons on the fact that they're both incredibly focused on a certain aspect of gameplay. It will have a cult following. It will have haters. But it won't be any average first person shooter bust.

[QUOTE=Ridge;48762672]TF2 is 8 years old, and CS is 3.[/QUOTE] And in that three years CSGO's price hasn't actually changed once? Plus, TF2 came in the Orange Box. It's not like everyone bought it separately.