Why Rainbow Six Patriots Got Canceled In Favor Of Siege

Eliminate threat by pressing X to yell JASOOOOOOON until he dies from earsplosion?

First the good news: weird capture-the-lady reveal aside, Rainbow Six Siege looks great! Full destruction is actually a game-changer, and it allows for all sorts of mad strategies, just as quick deaths encourage people to not just Rambo-charge in, wreathed in shimmering wood splinters, and fire blind. It’s a pretty cool game. But the game it’s taken the place of, Rainbow Six Patriots, at least looked… interesting last time we saw it strut its Heavy-Rain-inspired stuff. What happened there? I asked Ubisoft, and they were refreshingly frank about both why the game got canceled and what’s going on with Siege’s single-player.

First up, Patriots. Here’s what technical artistĀ Oliver Couture had to say about its cancellation:

“To be completely transparent, I worked on Patriots – on Rainbow Six for three-and-a-half years – and Patriots was old-gen. Xbox 360 and PS3. Next-gen consoles were just around the corner, and we were like, ‘OK, we want to also have a next-gen experience. What can we do for that?’ We were trying stuff out with destruction technology, and we realized destruction really changes the game. We tried to see how it could fit with old-gen, but it just didn’t work out. So for us it was just a better solution to clean the slate, reset, and make what’s best for the players.”

“We’ve been working hard for the past year-and-a-half [on Siege].”

Patriots was in the works for quite some time, though, and it’s hard to imagine all of that work going to waste. I asked Couture if any of Patriots’ cinematic bells and whistles will end up in Siege’s single-player mode, but as of now that’s undecided. Single-player is in the works, but it’s barely gotten off the ground floor.

“We know that single-player is also an important part of the Rainbow Six experience. We understand that while this year we showed multiplayer – because we want to have fun playing against each other internally, it’s a good test to know if a game is fun – but we are 100 percent aware that single-player is a big part. We’re currently working on that too.”

“The scope of the single-player is not completely clear yet, so I cannot really elaborate on it. All I know is that the message we have on the production floor is like, ‘All the comments online, people are always talking about single-player. So we’re gonna have something for them.’ But I can’t say if it will be more cinematic [like Patriots was] yet.”

Given Siege’s emphasis on small spaces and very tense action, it’d certainly be a challenge to integrate a more actively cinematic element into that. Who knows, though? If it’s not good for the game, then I hope Ubisoft doesn’t do it, but if they can make it work more power to them.

Now if they could just get around to implementing real rainbows, already. I mean, it’s been way more than six games, and isn’t this basically what godrays were invented for?


  1. Baboonanza says:

    Yeah, because we really need more ‘cinematic’ first person games.

    This has good potentialy though, I would be looking forward to this if it wasn’t UbiSoft aka ‘The new EA’.

    • Napalm Sushi says:

      Arron2563 may be the most snidely judgemental spambot I’ve ever seen.

      EDIT: Farewell, Arron2563; may your emergent smarminess not quite be a herald of the Silicon Uprising.

      • WiggumEsquilax says:

        That seems like a stretch.

      • Gap Gen says:

        Its commitment to the quality of the skin of its biologic underlings was unwavering.

        EDIT: In reply to Napalm Sushi, I guess the comment tree is messed up for deleted comments further up.

    • joa says:

      Cinematic movies seem to make a lot of money, e.g. Michael Bay and J. J. Abrahams, so I guess the logic is that cinematic games should too.

      I’m not sure how well that works out though. Most of the cinematic games I can think of have a multiplayer component which is the main draw, as far as I know.

      • phelix says:

        What is a ‘cinematic movieĀ“? One that is intended to be shown in cinemas? What kind of film is succesful if it is never shown in a cinema?

        • Baboonanza says:

          From his suggestion of Bay and Abrahams I guess ‘cinematic movie’ means ‘shit movie’?

          • MrUnimport says:

            Now that “cinematic” means “shit” we’ve completely divorced ourselves from the original meaning and thus can continue to be completely baffled when people use it as a positive adjective. I love the internet!

          • LennyLeonardo says:

            Jeez, calm down. Don’t cinema yourself.

        • cpt_freakout says:

          Maybe they’re like those interactive videogames we hear about so much

    • kevinspell says:

      I was once a huge fan of R6 series and was very disappointed when Ubisoft decided to kill off the series after Raven Shield. So I would really like to see some kind of singleplayer/coop with mini-sandbox levels and with bomb defusal or hostage rescue situations. And with proper optimization… And ability to play the game at launch…

      The gameplay video shown at E3 looks very interesting. But most of my friends don’t like the CT/SpecOps theme so I’m not really interested in the PvP part of the game. After dealing with all kinds of people in Dota 2 and CS I refuse to play any PvP MP game if my party is not fully stacked with people who can at least write with normal letters.

      • harmlos says:

        Play the game at launch ? Now you’re just being unreasonable.

  2. phelix says:

    Press X to make heartwrenching moral choice.

  3. sabasNL says:

    Really looking to see more of it’s multiplayer. It reminded me of Counter-Strike, but with destruction capabilities not far away from Red Faction. Sounds like a perfect combination to me.

  4. Bull0 says:

    Does anybody care that we aren’t getting that “cinematic” trollop?

    • Ross Angus says:

      Somewhere, a bald eagle is wiping a tear from it’s eye with a corner of the American flag.

    • TheVGamer says:

      I’m sure there are a few 13 year olds who creamed their pants for the first time at the sight of that CGI pitch video. For them, that will be their Fallout 3 Van Buren or ‘insert your favorite game that got cancelled’.

  5. Napoleon15 says:

    I don’t want a cinematic experience, moral choices or characters that evoke emotions. I want a realistic tactical shooter that allows me to simulate counter-terrorist operations from planning to execution. You know, like the original Rainbow Six.

    • Mman says:

      Pretty much. The few things I saw of Patriots looked like the series completely jumping the Shark (whatever was left of the Shark to jump over anyway). Siege showing up and demonstrating Ubisoft seemingly making a legitimate attempt to make a modern tactical shooter is a contender for the biggest pleasant surprise of E3 for me.

    • Evil Pancakes says:

      I second this.

    • termit says:

      Yep, can’t really think of a good single player tactical shooter Rainbow Six style having come out soonish. Maybe ARMA, but their missions are on a larger scale. At least Insurgency is pretty good at this on the multiplayer side for me, though.

      • USER47 says:

        The closest alternative to earlier Rainbow Six is the highly criticized Takedown. It is a little rough around the edges and it lacks the complexity of R6, but as usual the criticism if extremely overblown. There is nothing quite like it developed in last 10 years and in the near future.

        Few examples of SP gameplay, it really is quite evocative of Raven Shield, even without the planning phase:
        link to youtube.com

        • MrUnimport says:

          Pardon me, I’m not well-versed in the Rainbow 6 series, but what part of this is the tactical part? Is it the one where the facility full of trained PMCs cannot recognize the sound of silenced gunshots, the part where he shoots everyone in the facility himself? Or wait, I guess it must be the part where he goes around corners slowly and uses the single-shot mode on his rifle.

          • USER47 says:

            Well, the R6 was quite similar in this aspect, the AI was never exactly smart…I guess the most important part was always the tension and vulnerability than anything else. And that vulnerability vanished with newer incarnations of R6, while Takedown, with all its undeniable flaws, captures it quite well.

          • MrUnimport says:

            I’m probably alone in this, but I think a tactical experience is more likely to be gained by making soldiers more resilient. It doesn’t seem too tactical if you can just click on heads.

          • USER47 says:

            I sort of agree with you in this aspect, the “realism” often goes against the tactics in games, the R6 and GR series are bit too much focused on extreme vulnerability on both sides and aimbot AI. Takedown tries to emulate those, so it’s often more about quick reflexes than anything else.

            The Takedown actualy tries to do something little bit different with the damage modeling depending on the weapon and its caliber. For example going against heavily armored enemies in Radar Station map with 9mm SMG would be quite useless, since they can take quite a lot of those rounds…But higher caliber weapons are less controlable in tight situations, so on some maps with more CQB and unarmored enemies, the SMGs are better. The same goes for the type of ammunititon, it’s tied to amor penetration, environment penetration etc. The differences are somewhat overdone, but at least choosing the appropriate gear for each situation brings another layer in the game.

          • Gap Gen says:

            Yeah, it’s weird, the engine was solid, but there’s no real single player experience there. Your teammates do nothing beyond being meat shields or extra lives following you around, you can’t plan ops or have multiple squads, hell, the terrorist hunt mode is just one guy walking around mostly-lethal environments. I guess they must have just run out of money and had to release whatever, but it’s a shame it couldn’t at least repeat the skirmish experience of Raven Shield.

      • USER47 says:

        It’s mostly meant for coop, especialy the tango hunt mode, which is pretty much unplayable solo. Cooperative play eliminates a lot of flaws you encounter in SP.

        edit: this was supposed to go under Gap’s comment, i misclicked:/.

        • Gap Gen says:

          Yeah, I admit I never tried it in multiplayer, where I assume it would work fine.

  6. soonerdad3 says:

    yes Press X to make heartwrenching moral choice.
    traffic genesis

    • Gap Gen says:

      Spambot above, in case anyone is as dumb as me and feels like clicking the link.

      • phelix says:

        A spambot has copied me! I feel famous already.

      • hotmaildidntwork says:

        Thank you for that, I was wondering why someone hadn’t just replied to the original comment and what reddit had to do with anything when glancing down at your reply saved me from investigating further.

        Now if you’ll excuse me it’s 6 o’clock here, the hour at which I put my helmet on and stand out on the street corner, ranting incomprehensibly at the lamp post.

  7. rcguitarist says:

    Wouldn’t be surprised if they got lazy on the single player and went Payday’s route where the single player game is just the multiplayer game with AI teammates instead of other humans.

    • BisonHero says:

      Wait, how is that lazy? That’s what all sorts of clearly-meant-to-be-always-multiplayer games do. Payday, Left 4 Dead, most old PC multiplayer shooters (UT, Battlefield 1942, etc.).
      I agree that there is more of an expectation that Rainbow Six have singleplayer where you plan an assault on AI enemies, but calling it “lazy” that Payday doesn’t have a singleplayer makes it sound like you fundamentally don’t understand what sort of game Payday is.

  8. The Random One says:

    Patriots would end up being Spec Ops: The Line but worse.