Siege was never realistic, quit crying about sci fi ops

[Bobr]

Game was designed to be "tactical", not realistic, and most of the sci fi ops are either weaker than base ops or too situational, so there's no point in complaining about them.

[TwisterCat]

That's like saying Squad was never realistic because it's just a video game. Don't tell me how the game was designed boyo, https://youtu.be/J9p3vMcPVrE
I got approximately 100 quotes and 5+ videos from the developers that contradict this narrative.

Alongside this, in making the game less realistic, they've essentially downgraded the entire thing in the process.

[Wiesell]

Realistic isn't only about yes or a no, but there are levels of realism. Siege used to be semi-realistic. Now it's getting more fiction.

[Bobr]

Originally posted by TwisterCat:

That's like saying Squad was never realistic because it's just a video game. Don't tell me how the game was designed boyo, https://youtu.be/J9p3vMcPVrE
I got approximately 100 quotes and 5+ videos from the developers that contradict this narrative.

Alongside this, in making the game less realistic, they've essentially downgraded the entire thing in the process.

love to hear some of those quotes then lmao, and how have they downgraded the game? everyone cries about the game being bad but never rly explains.

[Bobr]

Originally posted by Wiesell:

Realistic isn't only about yes or a no, but there are levels of realism. Siege used to be semi-realistic. Now it's getting more fiction.

siege was never that realistic to begin with lmao, like "ooh u have to reload ur gun and if u get shot u die, how super realistic pog".

all the "realism" that siege has is basic game mechanics in any tactical shooter, or just basic shooters like cod lmao, realism was never a focus

[Wiesell]

Originally posted by Bobr:

Originally posted by TwisterCat:

That's like saying Squad was never realistic because it's just a video game. Don't tell me how the game was designed boyo, https://youtu.be/J9p3vMcPVrE
I got approximately 100 quotes and 5+ videos from the developers that contradict this narrative.

Alongside this, in making the game less realistic, they've essentially downgraded the entire thing in the process.

love to hear some of those quotes then lmao, and how have they downgraded the game? everyone cries about the game being bad but never rly explains.

Yeah they never really explained why the new favela was bad and some new reworks being bad. Honestly, them not making constructive feedbacks makes me feel that their critiques are subjective.

[TwisterCat]

Originally posted by Bobr:

Originally posted by TwisterCat:

That's like saying Squad was never realistic because it's just a video game. Don't tell me how the game was designed boyo, https://youtu.be/J9p3vMcPVrE
I got approximately 100 quotes and 5+ videos from the developers that contradict this narrative.

Alongside this, in making the game less realistic, they've essentially downgraded the entire thing in the process.

love to hear some of those quotes then lmao, and how have they downgraded the game? everyone cries about the game being bad but never rly explains.

Of course, when we're talking about how it's gotten worse, it is of course subjective. One could say Big Rigs Over the Road Racing is the hottest ♥♥♥♥ they've ever seen, and they'd have paid 80+ dollars for a sequel, but I'm purely going off the general audience's perception of game quality.

P1 dwngrds: Ubisoft admits to having downgraded graphics, gunplay mechanics such as visible barrel rise and the general increase of the average RoF most guns have, specific gameplay features such as night maps, bodies, "realistic mode" for custom games, which is a direct signal that the game CAN be realistic, and that it was only TWEAKED for multiplayer, due to gameplay similarities.

P2 dwngrds: The ability to throw back grenades, the realistic smoke grenade visuals which have since been downgraded for a more "sci-fi" experience based on competitive gameplay, enhanced bullet penetration designed to focus on realism, at the expense of personal satisfaction which has since been changed, the time it takes to be detected outside which offers enhanced gameplay experience focused on slow-paced gameplay and consideration, movement shake while running, a superior deployable shield which discourages the now infamous "quick-peeking" mechanic.

P3 dwngrds: The destruction of wooden barricades fragment into scattered pieces providing enhanced visuals and immersion, a superior melee animation, which is much slower, and better designed for the hitreg to handle and a superior ping system.

GAMEPLAY SUMMARY:

There were many changes not covered in these lists, many changes which played a role in people's enjoyment of the game, but were not worthy of note. Said gameplay changes are regarded by many veterans of the games as better gameplay mechanics, that added life to Siege, and made it a unique experience.

I will not be mentioning the flaws that accompanied these changes, I do not feel it's needed, as Siege has always been a game that will need to manage flawed and un-competitive mechanics, unless, of course, we go down the road of E-Sports that we're currently going down, which is a miserable and unfun road to travel. The cost of removing these changes vastly outweighed the positives, THE MAJORITY OF CHANGES DIDN'T HAVE POSITIVES.

Onto the concept of Siege. The name implies a lot. RAINBOW SIX, a series that, by trade, is a semi-futuristic task force game franchise, by naming Siege after it, implies it follows the exact same path of the Rainbow Six series, which it did not. That is misleading in it's own rights, but perhaps forgivable.

There were originally concepts of a helicopter "eagle eye" concept, in which a player would control a camera on a helicopter to spot for enemies that had breached the perimeter, a concept which clearly implies the intentions on a realistic experience, based on the real world.

All early operators were designed based on real world agencies, and wielded real world weaponry and gadgets, with the exception of operator abilities, this indicates a focus on realism. Why would Ubisoft acquire rights for real world weaponry, if they didn't intend to create a realistic experience? It doesn't add up, it would have been significantly cheaper to use sci-fi weaponry instead.

A Wired.com article reviewer states, on launch, that the game is "Ubisoft's latest tactical shooter, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege, adopts a striking bent towards a unique brand of pseudo-realism." Something that aligns with the narrative that the E3 trailer I posted earlier, clearly portrays.

A direct quote from the developers, from https://www.usgamer.net/articles/inside-rainbow-six-sieges-development
"It's a big challenge. It's a challenge for animation direction, it's also a challenge for the rest of the art direction, and a challenge for level design. You want to have a good flow through everything, and you want it to look super-REALISTIC. But at the same time you have metrics and gameplay, destruction, the concept of one life, you're trying to open up all the different sight lines, and there's also the 20 operatives. All of these variables make everything very dynamic, but the payoff in terms of replayability is huge. The maps play differently every time. Choose different operators on a map, and it changes it completely." Science fiction does not look realistic. At all.

There's also the likely fact that Siege was a salvaged version of R6 Patriots, a game designed to be realistic, many of the concepts of that game were very likely brought over to this game, thus making it based on the realistic experience of Patriots.

Another problem with the sci-fi theme is that the world's based on real locations, and R6 lore, which is by the history of the franchise, as previously described, pseudo-realism, not science fiction with laser gates.

https://youtu.be/8-4mTvxwD_s
This livestream is a conceptual coffin for the sci-fi Siege, it was never intended to be science fiction, it was always designed to be realistic with hints of fun gameplay mechanics and Rainbow Six-esque gadgets. The whole livestream, the guy goes on and on about how they designed Siege after the real world. Nonestop. Every time he speaks, he has something to say. I could post any of the developers pre-alpha footage discussions or developer notes pages explaining decisions made off of realistic concepts, but this livestream alone is full of more quotes than I would ever need to prove anything.

CONCEPT SUMMARY:

Siege was clearly designed to be a semi-realistic experience, mixing BOTH gameplay and realism. That reflected the first 3 years of development, as they retained features that, despite the community disliking, remained for both visuals and realism. Realism has been slowly removed over time, by way of gameplay, indicating that gameplay and new concepts have since taken precedent over realism, otherwise, said changes listed would have been altered much sooner than they already were.

[Bobr]

this mans typed out a whole essay, but im not gonna read that, he wins the argument, deleting thread in a couple of minutes

[Biv]

kekw

Originally posted by Bobr:

this mans typed out a whole essay, but im not gonna read that, he wins the argument, deleting thread in a couple of minutes

:eleven:

[Bobr]

decided to actually read his essay, he's got some good points, but uh

if siege was meant to be a tactical realistic shooter game, then why is it now a sci fi tactical e-sport?

checkmate athiests

[TwisterCat]

Originally posted by Bobr:

decided to actually read his essay, he's got some good points, but uh

if siege was meant to be a tactical realistic shooter game, then why is it now a sci fi tactical e-sport?

checkmate athiests

Because E-Sports was never the Game's primary intention. It's core audience at the time of launch, by testimonial of players back then, wasn't that of a competitive game fandom.

The gameplay changes I've listed have since changed the core audience vastly, and the changes, over the course of 6 years, allowed for a shift in gameplay to that of E-Sports, which has since brought in a massive flow of financial support for Ubisoft. The developers saw an opportunity, they took it.

[Bobr]

Originally posted by TwisterCat:

Originally posted by Bobr:

decided to actually read his essay, he's got some good points, but uh

if siege was meant to be a tactical realistic shooter game, then why is it now a sci fi tactical e-sport?

checkmate athiests

Because E-Sports was never the Game's primary intention. It's core audience at the time of launch, by testimonial of players back then, wasn't that of a competitive game fandom.

The gameplay changes I've listed have since changed the core audience vastly.

idk man back when siege first launched I played it as a new csgo, and pretty much everyone i know did too, not as a new milsim game

[TwisterCat]

Originally posted by Bobr:

Originally posted by TwisterCat:

Because E-Sports was never the Game's primary intention. It's core audience at the time of launch, by testimonial of players back then, wasn't that of a competitive game fandom.

The gameplay changes I've listed have since changed the core audience vastly.

idk man back when siege first launched I played it as a new csgo, and pretty much everyone i know did too, not as a new milsim game

It had a flavour of SWAT 4 mixed with competitive shooter aspects and a hint of Overwatch. They ganked the SWAT 4 mechanics and beat it to death before quickly replacing it with CS mechanics and pretending nothing had happened.

[Bobr]

Originally posted by TwisterCat:

Originally posted by Bobr:

idk man back when siege first launched I played it as a new csgo, and pretty much everyone i know did too, not as a new milsim game

It had a flavour of SWAT 4 mixed with competitive shooter aspects and a hint of Overwatch. They ganked the SWAT 4 mechanics and beat it to death before quickly replacing it with CS mechanics and pretending nothing had happened.

never played swat 4 but looked up some game play,

Seems your comparison to that game is mislead due to the player base at the time not knowing how to actually play siege so they just took things extremely slow due to them not knowing what to do.

Same thing happens to all video games, game play speeds up when people learn the game and become comfortable.

Just cause the game used to be slow doesn't mean the game was suppose to be that way

[Biv]

Originally posted by TwisterCat:

Originally posted by Bobr:

idk man back when siege first launched I played it as a new csgo, and pretty much everyone i know did too, not as a new milsim game

It had a flavour of SWAT 4 mixed with competitive shooter aspects and a hint of Overwatch. They ganked the SWAT 4 mechanics and beat it to death before quickly replacing it with CS mechanics and pretending nothing had happened.

♥♥♥♥ changes get over it

[Mini]

I’m not really sure why this arguement matters. You should think of operators in terms of what role they fill and how they are balanced compared to others. Siege is a video game, first and foremost. As long as the gameplay is enjoyable and the balance is decent, realism doesn’t matter at all.

If you’re really into realistic shooters, just go play Tarkov or something.