This week, apparently, it was only announced that Rainbow Six Siege will not feature a campaign mode. I don’t know why, but this comes as news to many, and I simply don’t get how that was overlooked by the gaming community. From the initial reveal at E3 last year, the game was shown off as a multiplayer game. The following year, another multiplayer demo, showing Terror Hunt, the game’s Terrorist Hunt mode from previous games. You’d think that a reveal of the story mode would have been shown by now, eh?
At EGX in Birmingham this weekend, Scott Mitchell, the game’s art director, said that players will have a training session “where you get to experience different operators and their devices,” and that players may face off against enemy AI fighters “in co-op through all the maps,” as reported by Polygon.
Rainbow Six Siege launches on December 1st with 10 maps, and Ubisoft promise free map updates post-launch, which is nice. But, the game still only launches with 10 maps and no campaign mode. Should the game be cheaper, due to it featuring less than say, Halo 5? Let’s weigh up the pros and cons, the ups and downs.
Price point versus content:
Here, we’ll take three games into consideration. Let’s choose Rainbow Six Siege of course, Halo 5 and Fallout 4. I’m choosing these because what they all have in common is that they’re not out yet, but we have a fair idea what to expect from each.
All priced the same, we can gather, Fallout 4 will be entirely single player, offering hundreds of hours of gameplay. Halo 5 will include a campaign mode, playable in co-op, and feature a traditionally jam-packed multiplayer suite. It will also include 20 maps at launch. Rainbow Six Siege will only feature a multiplayer suite, consisting of 10 maps, various gameplay modes and different character classes. Which game offers the best value for money? It kind of depends on your preference, doesn’t it? Sure, you’ll enjoy one over the other, but will you enjoy it for as long?
Campaign mode versus multiplayer mode:
Rainbow Six Siege isn’t the first game to omit a campaign/story mode. Titanfall in 2014 did in fact have a campaign mode, but that was played online, and similarly to the multiplayer mode. The only difference was the maps played in a particular sequence, and the story was driven by in-game radio chatter during gameplay. It was fun, but fans wanted a dedicated single player experience to flesh out the story.
Evolve is also focused solely on multiplayer, with 4 players fighting against one player, who is the enemy monster being hunted. There’s also the Battlefield series, which started introducing single player campaign stories, but Battlefield has always been about the multiplayer battles, and in my opinion, nobody buys that series for the story mode alone. Call of Duty is extremely popular for its multiplayer suite, but they also come with a well scripted, action-packed, movie-like story and set piece shenanigans. It’s played through once or twice if at all, but then the multiplayer mode is what holds the player’s attention. As pointed out in the news this week, Black Ops 3 won’t include a campaign on the PS3 or Xbox 360.
Comparisons versus series traditions:
I’ve seen people comparing CounterStrike to Rainbow Six Siege with its online only functionality, but I argue that point, saying that CounterStrike, like Team Fortress, is built on the grounds of multiplayer. It didn’t have a campaign mode. Most of, if not all Rainbow Six titles, had a story/campaign mode. Excluding it from Siege just makes the game feel like half a game. Where’s the rest of it? I enjoyed Rainbow Six Vegas and its sequel, especially for the story and setting.
Online only game versus no internet:
Whether it’s day one launch madness or your internet dies for an hour or two, trying to play an online only title with server problems or lack of internet just doesn’t work. Go out and buy an online only game, being unable to play it, and you’ll soon feel cheated. This was felt most with Titanfall, which doesn’t allow for gameplay against AI, only humans. It has a training simulator to learn the basics, but not enough in the way of playing the game without a connection. Rainbow Six Siege might well allow you to play some game modes alone, but who wants to do that in an online team-based shooter?
Single Player only versus multiplayer only – pricing:
This kind of touches on a previous point, but if a game is single player only, such as Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Batman Arkham, The Witcher, is it right to charge full price for these games, lacking multiplayer? Likewise, if a game is multiplayer only, focusing on online connectivity, such as Titanfall, Evolve, Rainbow Six Siege or CounterStrike (ignore CounterStrike on pricing), should they be charged at full price? What’s the difference? Is a single player experience valued higher than multiplayer? I’m not defending either here, but it’s worth your consideration.
So there we have it, a few issues to consider and discuss, and we’d like to hear what you have to say. Leave your opinion in the comments below (sign in with Facebook or Twitter) or leave your thoughts on our Facebook page.