hahnsolo wrote on Nov 4, 2011, 10:55:
This game sounds like a plot for Sum of All Fears 2 and not a Rainbow Six game. I wish Red Storm would take their studio back from Ubisoft.

Raptor wrote on Nov 4, 2011, 06:55:
Also the concept video for those who haven't seen it:
Concept video

"Press X to kiss wife"
Not too promising to be honest, too many aids from icons, seeing through cars to constant tooltips that you probably can't turn off, 3rd person is never immersive ffs.

Seems like Call of Duty scripted stuff mixed with Vegas style "action hero approach"

netnerd85 wrote on Nov 4, 2011, 06:51:

Bard wrote on Nov 3, 2011, 15:42:
Wouldn't it be better for Rainbow to go after THE REAL TERRORISTS - ie - assassinating or capturing bankers and politicians - rather than this transparent brainwashing attempt to support the bastards that have created this mess our country is in today?

That would make a GREAT game.

I would never play a game where I was shooting fellow Australians, the developers should be ashamed of themselves. THIS GAME IS MORALLY WRONG!

Bard wrote on Nov 3, 2011, 15:42:
Wouldn't it be better for Rainbow to go after THE REAL TERRORISTS - ie - assassinating or capturing bankers and politicians - rather than this transparent brainwashing attempt to support the bastards that have created this mess our country is in today?

That would make a GREAT game.

Dalumberjack wrote on Nov 3, 2011, 19:47:
Am I one of the few that miss the Rogue Spear days? I wish people still played that version.

It would be awesome if they did a remake or this new installment that was somewhat faithful to the old ways of the series.

Prez wrote on Nov 3, 2011, 20:25:
I was never a big fan of the planning phase. It was cool and all, but the vast majority of the mission time was spent in a 3D wireframe setting waypoints and commands - the mission itself would only take a fraction of the time. Not unrealistic, but not necessarily "fun" either...

Flatline wrote on Nov 3, 2011, 17:46:

Beamer wrote on Nov 3, 2011, 16:58:
Of course not.
For one, the game is likely going to play with the moral ambiguity.
Even if it doesn't, the terrorists will clearly be terrorists regardless of motives. LittleMe, I know you have a tinfoil hat on, but if some OWS people put a nuclear bomb in the middle of Wall Street and blew it up wouldn't you say that they were terrorists? Even if you agreed with their fundamental ideas?

Unless OWS as an organization supported such an effort, or the leadership was responsible for such an effort, no, I wouldn't say OWS was a terrorist organization. I'd say some wackos terrorists used OWS as a cover to do something horrible.

OWS is a bad example since it's so nebulous. There's nobody checking OWS membership cards at the gate: Anyone can show up and protest. I'm sure racists, militia/sovereign nuts, and all kinds of bigots have showed up at OWS protests. Doesn't mean that OWS is any of those things until they significantly support such concepts.

Case in point: In Occupy Oakland's general strike yesterday there were some vandals, breaking windows and spay-painting graffiti. By your example OO would be a vandal group. However, the rest of OO did their best to restrain and deny the vandals, and in some cases even came back to clean up graffiti and other vandalism.

So the question becomes, by your example, is Occupy Oakland peaceful or vandals?

space captain wrote on Nov 3, 2011, 18:58:
Sounds like you are one stupid little

LittleMe wrote on Nov 3, 2011, 16:55:
dupe!

Oh, so you already know. That's good.

LittleMe wrote on Nov 3, 2011, 16:56:
True. "The means and the end are one." - Eckhart Tolle

LittleMe wrote on Nov 3, 2011, 16:55:
dupe!