Support NeoGAF

[nynt9]

Great review from Wired: Rainbow Six Siege Review: This Thing is Disturbingly Real

A SOFT HISS and a stream of sparks are all the warning I have. In seconds, I’m surrounded. Bathed in smoke and gunfire, desperately clinging to life. In another instant it’s all over.

We’ve “won.”

Ubisoft’s latest tactical shooter, Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six Siege, adopts a striking bent towards a unique brand of pseudo-realism. Siege evokes a perverse version of the uncanny valley. It mixes the over-the-top, arcade-style renditions of violence games often lean towards with the gut-wrenching reality that we are, in fact, remarkably fragile.

This is an odd message for a game that generally glorifies militarized police and the often-critiqued excesses of real-world counter-terrorism units, but it’s one that shines through in spite of itself.
Death and fear is a constant for both sides, and the fact that there are no second lives or chances — unlike the overwhelming majority of online shooters — brings your own mortality to the forefront.
In the heat of an assault, this leads to a series of gameplay beats orchestrated by fear.

Like Dark Souls and other hyper-lethal games, Rainbow Six Siege encourages an extreme level of caution at all times. Previous Rainbow Six games were similar (Tom Clancy’s gaming brand is pretty consistent as far as morbidity is concerned), but Siege mixes in so many unusual ways to attack through walls and around corners that make vulnerability an overarching theme.
It’s impossible to overstate just how pervasive fear is in Siege. As you play and progress, you’ll be able to unlock new characters, called “Operators,” with disturbingly potent abilities. One can launch one projectile that will burrow into any wall and cluster bomb anyone unlucky enough to be on the other side. Another can fortify with a stationary machine gun, a device able to shut down almost any offense with little effort. These abilities and the operators that dispense them create an omnipresent feeling of brinksmanship. And, because death means that you’re out for the round, mistakes are brutally punished and consequential.

PC Gamer - 90/100

But Siege makes me sweat enough. More than enough. So much, that I have trouble playing it for long stretches. It’s an intense, hyper-focused, game—’game’ in italics for emphasis. In italics because it’s possible to talk about Siege in the same watercooler conversations as CS:GO or Dota 2. In italics because they look cool and so is Siege. It makes no bones about what it is and nearly no compromises for its design as a Tactical Multiplayer Shooter™, and I admire Siege for that.

Most tactical games take a while to get there: the tipping point where I’m no longer struggling with controls, communication, or match flow. After the first match in a typical game of Siege, I know my role, my team and I have developed a relationship, and we’re settling into a unique rhythm. For a game with so many branches of complexity and potential, Siege is the only shooter I know that encourages such tactical depth, player expression, and creative teamplay. It’s a game that wastes no time getting to the primal, creative, social, everything core of what makes competition so much fun.

AusGamers - 8.6/10

Walls, floors and ceilings can all fall to pieces in Rainbow Six Siege, turning a relatively defensible position into a nightmare area very quickly. It turns into an arms race of knowledge as players commit to craftier and craftier things. Go prone, blast a hole through a wall and use a street sweeper to cut down anyone as they walk past. Next time, your enemies will fill any hole in a wall with lead to make sure you can't get them on the sneak.

Or, knowing your enemies have secured the top floor of a building you could stand below them, send a drone into their room to tag their Tachanka and then shoot up through the ceiling, like Bruce Willis hiding under a boardroom table. Suddenly Mute's ability to block drones is vital to denying your opponents information, and players who can master the jammer placement are of high value.

This play and counter-play is the essence of good competitive gaming, and Rainbow Six Siege appears to have it in droves. It's more than just operator abilities -- barricading the correct walls can create firing lanes, and using barbed wire in the right position can be the difference between winning and losing.

Cheat Code Central - 4.3/5

When things fall into place, and you do find yourself lost in the moment, Siege will frighten you and challenge you. Stakes and tensions run high whether playing solo or in a group, but the game truly shines when you’re working with a coherent team, so pick this game up and find one. When you’re on a squad with tactical, patient teammates, Rainbow Six Siege offers a multiplayer experience unlike anything you’ve played - the kind of experience that you think and dream about long after you’ve put the controller down.

LaPS4 - 82/100

Pocket Lint - 4/5

Old Rainbow Six fans might grumble a bit when they first play Siege due to the lack of a proper planning phase, but it’s such a thoroughly infectious strategy shooter that we’d wager it won’t take long before it wins them over.
The solo play is limited, but it's in multiplayer that Siege really shines. Positioned in among the glut of same-old same-old futuristic shooters this Rainbow Six revamp feels all the more fresh and exciting to play as a result. If, of course, you're into strategy shooters.

GameReactor UK - 8/10

Rainbow Six: Siege is not fully stocked with different modes, but this is a case of quality over quantity. 'Situations' and 'Terrorist Hunt' are fun for a couple of hours, but it's in competitive multiplayer where the game shines. The matches are short, intense and always surprising. The wait as Defender before the Attackers rush in guns blazing is tense every time. And as an Attacker it never gets boring finding a new angle from which to enter the building. With eleven maps you quickly feel you've seen everything the game has to offer, but to critique this for the number of maps or because of the lack of single-player would be to miss the point of what it tries to achieve. This is the thinking person's shooter, one for those that appreciate a well-executed strategy above a well-executed headshot. Rainbow Six is back and the series still refuses to look or play like any other shooter on the market. And for that we're very, very happy indeed.

Destructoid - 8/10

Rainbow Six Siege has a lot going for it when it comes to the long haul. While three modes doesn't sound like a lot, the sheer volume of variables involved will result in an experience that constantly stays fresh, even with the current pool of 11 maps. While a few other major shooters have let me down this year, I think Siege is one of the games I'll be playing the most going forward.

XGN - 8/10

GameReactor Sweden - 8/10

JeuxActu - 8/10

Hobby Consolas - 79/100

3d Juegos - 8/10

Gamesradar - 3.5/5

No, this is all about the interplay between classes across online competitive modes and co-op. Each operator has a unique skill, and there are 20 at launch. Examples include Fuze, who fires cluster grenades through walls, Sledge, who bashes them down with a hammer, Blitz and his flashbang riot shield, and Doc, who revives from distance with a syringe gun. Soon come clever strategies such as erecting shields in doorways the enemy must hop over, parking your RC drone in corners to keep tabs on opponents, and shooting out windows to freak out opponents.

...

Rainbow Six Siege’s calculating, climactic confrontations feel fresh in a genre mostly concerned with movement. You’re less headbutting ram and more coiled snake here. Microtransactions and a lack of singleplayer activities count against it, but there’s nothing quite like laying a laser tripwire over a window, crouching in a cupboard, and waiting to pounce on the next person through it.

GamersGlobal.de -7/10 (can't confirm score but a poster said it's 7)

PC Gamer - No score yet

So far, I think Siege is great. With a communicative team, making plans and messing them up (or not) is a fun time bolstered by a surprising amount of depth in the map design and character abilities. Siege feels like a special kind of shooter, a pleasing psychological trap that depends more on teamwork and smarts rather than reflex.

God is a geek - No score yet

If you and your friends are looking for a tactical multiplayer shooter then you can’t go wrong with Rainbow Six: Siege. The online action is quite simply phenomenal when played correctly, although a few balance changes to make attacking easier would improve it considerably. Things become less fun when you play alone, but it is certainly still enjoyable. Terrorist Hunt remains great entertainment and weirdly relaxing compared to the online mode, and the situations are decent enough as well. The flagship destructible environments become almost forgettable when playing, which is a testament to how well they are implemented, and the operators offer a much needed sense of variety. Few shooters feel as good as this to play, but friends are definitely needed to get the full experience.

The Sixth Axis - No score yet

Having been able to dip into the beta – when it’s worked – will certainly have helped people to already make up their minds for Rainbow Six Siege and if it’s for them. Between the lack of a story-based solo campaign and wanting to play with friends rather than strangers, there’s a number of reasons why Siege could be off-putting to fans of the series, but get past those disappointments and limitations, and there are plenty of fascinating mind games and tense action to be had.

IGN - Review in Progress

Siege reboots the long-running Rainbow Six series as a five-on-five, attack-and-defend competitive shooter that’s as much about blowing holes in the world around you as in your opponents. Destruction is no gimmick; shooting through walls, blasting through floors and ceilings, and keeping as much of your corporeal Special Forces husk behind fragile cover during firefights is key to extending your life in each of the respawn-free modes. Using a gadget to detect the presence of an enemy and fragging them through what would, in most other first-person shooters, be an indestructible hunk of drywall isn’t just satisfying; it’s thrilling.

Eurogamer - No Score

It's especially notable in a full-priced game, and a full-priced game with a prominent shop-front to boot. Rainbow Six Siege's attempt to add crinkles to its well developed yet slim core comes through a selection of unlockable 'operators' with unique traits: a MOBA-ish play to introduce distinguishable characters into the fray.

They're real characters, too, and I already have a couple of favourites: Twitch, the French offensive unit who comes complete with a remote-controlled Shock Drone that can buzz enemies, and Thatcher, the gruff-voiced SAS operative whom, I admit, I'm only playing because I'm convinced he's voiced by Zombi U's Prepper, and who I hope will one day meet his downfall in the shape of his nemesis Scargill.
[...]
The next few days will be interesting, and I hope the stars align so I can see Rainbow Six Siege at its best again. Because when all the parts are ticking over correctly, it can be an absolute joy.

USGamer - Review in progress

There were ten of us at the review event, all playing a fully unlocked PC version of the game, and we dipped into all aspects of Rainbow Six: Siege during the day, starting with Situations, the single-player mode.

...

Rainbow Six: Siege is definitely at its best in its multiplayer PvP mode. Squaring off against five other players in a battle where you don't get any respawns makes for some really tense and exciting action. The destructible environments are key to adding a new dimension to the gameplay, and really open the game up to some interesting tactical approaches. Rainbow Six: Siege is definitely a very different beast to most FPS games, which helps it carve out its own niche in the genre - if you're after a more thoughtful, tactical, tense and exciting shooter, this is definitely the one to have.

Opencritic - 76
Metacritic - 76

 

[Bishop89]

Hmmm, Im going to guess a 76 on Metacritic.

I enjoyed the beta for what its worth.

 

[ashecitism]

Gamespot's review will come later

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/wheres-our-rainbow-6-siege-review/1100-6432646/

 

[Moldiver]

Games Radars negatives seem strange

"Needless microtransactions in a full-priced game
Spotty hit detection
Not much in terms of single player"

Can understand hit detection being a negative I've saw blood spray out of a guy that has killed me and in the replay he has full health.

But micro-transactions, no ones is making you buy them (unless the p2w factor is there) and most people know this isn't really a single player game (I hope)

 

[Always-honest]

Nice. Now the wait for real reviews.

 

[The Elite]

So it looks like if they get their shit together on the server end this will turn out to be a good game.

Glad a lot of places are holding their review scores but this could end up being a shit show still.

 

[Corpsepyre]

There's no single player/story mode in this one as well, right?

 

[mjc]

Gonna get this, the beta was great fun.

 

[LiK]

There's no single player/story mode in this one as well, right?

right

 

[cackhyena]

As of the beta going on a couple days ago, if that's a true indication of the final product, I'm not even trusting a review that doesn't mention the weird ass hit detection.

 

[Kathian]

Games Radars negatives seem strange

"Needless microtransactions in a full-priced game
Spotty hit detection
Not much in terms of single player"

Can understand hit detection being a negative I've saw blood spray out of a guy that has killed me and in the replay he has full health.

But micro-transactions, no ones is making you buy them (unless the p2w factor is there) and most people know this isn't really a single player game (I hope)

Its about the value proposition and reviewers always take this into account considering how expensive games are.

 

[Moldiver]

Its about the value proposition and reviewers always take this into account considering how expensive games are.

It does look like it takes some time to unlock stuff but I'm still trying to unlock stuff in BF4 so personally not a negative to me.

 

[Death Metalist]

Played enough to know I'm going to get this one regardless of what it scores. I hope it sells well and we'll see more robust tactical shooter in the market especially when it comes to consoles but, I doubt it.

 

[Ont]

These complaints about the lack of a singleplayer mode are not good for the gaming industry.

Resources spent on singleplayer campaigns mean less content for the multiplayer. It is perfectly fine for a game to be released without any singleplayer content (Starsiege: Tribes 1998).

Multiplayer only games can be great games as well and the fact that there is no singleplayer content should not be held against these games.

 

[Gemüsepizza]

These complaints about the lack of a singleplayer mode are not good for the gaming industry.

Resources spent on singleplayer campaigns mean less content for the multiplayer. It is perfectly fine for a game to be released without any singleplayer content (Starsiege: Tribes 1998).

Multiplayer only games can be great games as well and the fact that there is no singleplayer content should not be held against these games.

This is nonsense. They do not spend the resources from the singleplayer campaign on the multiplayer mode. They just spend less resources overall on the game. How can you look at games like Rainbow Six and Star Wars Battlefront and think "Oh not having a singleplayer campaign really payed off!". You don't, because it's not true. Games like R6 or SWBF are just cash grabs. If they really would have spent so many resources on the game we would have much more maps, weapons and other content.

 

[d1rtn4p]

This is nonsense. They do not spend the resources from the singleplayer campaign on the multiplayer mode. They just spend less resources overall on the game. How can you look at games like Rainbow Six and Star Wars Battlefront and think "Oh not having a singleplayer campaign really payed off!". You don't, because it's not true. Games like R6 or SWBF are just cash grabs. If they really would have spent so many resources on the game we would have much more maps, weapons and other content.

Agreed. I played the hell out of Tribes and Tribes 2. Both games had tons of content. I have not seen a recent multiplayer-only shooter game that has come close.

 

[Socky]

These complaints about the lack of a singleplayer mode are not good for the gaming industry.

Resources spent on singleplayer campaigns mean less content for the multiplayer. It is perfectly fine for a game to be released without any singleplayer content (Starsiege: Tribes 1998).

Multiplayer only games can be great games as well and the fact that there is no singleplayer content should not be held against these games.

You don't have a better example than a game from 1998? I'd put Left 4 Dead up as a good example of a strong MP-only game, and that had very limited maps, but they were great and importantly played differently every time. Siege at least has elements of that going for it with the destruction, traps, defences changing each time, which helps extend value.

I don't have an issue with an MP-only game per se, but in value terms it can feel like a rip-off. Perhaps if R6: Siege boasted twenty MP maps I might feel we were getting better value, I'd even be happier with remixed maps where the basic structure stays the same but the map furniture is changed around, because this would give a different game experience and change tactics per remix (I don't know why more devs don't do this).

I will be getting SW Battlefront and Siege, both of which feel somewhat like half-products (and not just because no campaign, but also because MP seems somewhat limited), but I'm only getting them now at full price because they'll both be gifts. If I had to spend my own cash on these it would be a different story and if I had to wait maybe I wouldn't get SW at all.

 

[Nestunt]

This is nonsense. They do no't spend the resources from the singleplayer campaign on the multiplayer mode. They just spend less resources overall on the game. How can you look at games like Rainbow Six and Star Wars Battlefront and think "Oh not having a singleplayer campaign really payed off!". You don't, because it's not true. Games like R6 or SWBF are just cash grabs. If they really would have spent so many resources on the game we would have much more maps, weapons and other content.

Its something Publishers must have seen in their statistical analyses. The majority of consumers of games like, Call of Duty, Battlefield play online and do not touch the offline portion. Whereas, the consumer of Metal Gear, Assassin's Creed, etc do not touch the online as much.

People just have to accept that games as a package is ending and the 60 dollar value is relative. I do not like to play online but who am I to say that Overwatch is not worth 60 dollars to consumers (heck, even 100 to some, I bet).

Consumers just need to be informed and know what product they are buying.

I agree with you on one aspect: Yes, it is easier and cheaper to do a beautiful Star Wars game than a Fallout 4 where you have to program AI, quests and a thread of a story. And companies are using the moba and e-sports trend to justify investing in online only games to their shareholders. It is a cop-out in terms of design expecting that every game of this ilk will have emergent gameplay surging from the online interaction instead of programming NPCs. That market will be saturated very fast because people tend to congregate to 1 or 2 games and play for hundreds of hours, while games like Uncharted, Mass Effect, etc are more like books or movies where you experience it and then go to the next offering.

But, once more, I understand this publishers trend. The money is online. And if that money helps them risking in projects like The Witcher, Deus Ex or The Last Guardian, I dont mind that they promote the hell out of these online only games.

It is up to the consumer to know what experience is in the box. Expecting the box to have everything is kinda unrealistic these days because games are expensive as hell to make and the return is slim specially with the competition of free to play online in the PC

 

[dantevsninjas]

right

Wait, didn't they do a whole thing where they announced Angela Bassett was in this? Or was that the old version that got scrapped?

 

[SomTervo]

Its something Publishers must have seen in their statistical analyses. The majority of consumers of games like, Call of Duty, Battlefield play online and do not touch the offline portion. Whereas, the consumer of Metal Gear, Assassin's Creed, etc do not touch the online as much.

Very astute.

If we get more and more of a certain type of game, it figures that it's publisher directive. They're the ones who call the shots on game releases.

The only reason we're getting more multiplayer-only/focused games is because publishers have identified that it's best not to split your focus and make SP + MP. It's best to do one or t'other.

 

[boredandlazy]

Destructoid - 7.5

Spoiler

Just kidding

 

[Ont]

This is nonsense. They do not spend the resources from the singleplayer campaign on the multiplayer mode. They just spend less resources overall on the game. How can you look at games like Rainbow Six and Star Wars Battlefront and think "Oh not having a singleplayer campaign really payed off!". You don't, because it's not true. Games like R6 or SWBF are just cash grabs. If they really would have spent so many resources on the game we would have much more maps, weapons and other content.

I am looking at Rainbow Six: Siege and saying that not putting singleplayer there really paid off. Based on my time on beta I can say it is a great MP game which seems to have plenty of content. Even without the singleplayer mode this game got delayed twice, so I wonder how half-assed the MP portion of the game would have been had they spent time on making the singleplayer campaign. I haven't played SWBF but calling this game a cash grap is both cynical and stupid.

Halo 5 has a great multiplayer game, but there is not much content there, and now people are complaining about the lack of MP content. I think SP campaigns belong to Halo games so I can understand why it is there and I enjoy playing those campaigns. Most developers don't even have access to budgets comparable to Halo games. Even with that enormous Microsoft budget 343 Industries only managed to get in, what seems to be, less than 10 playable Arena maps.

Tribes 1 and Tribes 2 had a ton of multiplayer content because Dynamix did not need to worry about singleplayer.

 

[BearPawB]

This game isn't going to be for everyone and that's fine.
But if you like tense, tactical, multiplayer shooters then tough might just love this game.

 

[Green Yoshi]

GamersGlobal.de gives a 7.0.

 

[nynt9]

Added IGN and Eurogamer to OP

 

[ashecitism]

Wait, didn't they do a whole thing where they announced Angela Bassett was in this? Or was that the old version that got scrapped?

No, it was this. But it was never an SP campaign.

 

[Halph n Halph]

Added IGN and Eurogamer to OP

They seem to love it.

 

[Unbound By Death]

The beta seemed fun but nothing special

 

[Ont]

You don't have a better example than a game from 1998

Now you can name many games like L4D. I used Tribes as an example because it was one of the first games to skip Singleplayer. One year later more games followed this model (Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, Turok: Race Wars on N64).

 

[Saty]

Another MP shooter and another sites scoring the game before they could play it on real conditions.

 

[Rival]

I've always been interested in these types of games but have never actually played one. Are they really difficult to get into?

 

[nynt9]

I've always been interested in these types of games but have never actually played one. Are they really difficult to get into?

The beta was pretty easy to get into while having a lot of depth. It's not like OG R6 or CS where there is a huge barrier for entry. The core mechanics are pretty familiar for modern shooters, and the depth comes from tactical situations. Teamwork is key.

 

[Vire]

More positive than I was expecting after playing the beta to be honest.

The visuals are pretty hideous, but I guess that's not the main appeal? Hit detection and input latency also seemed like a major issue.

 

[cackhyena]

More positive than I was expecting after playing the beta to be honest.

The visuals are pretty hideous, but I guess that's not the main appeal?

It's R6. Of course not. People loved the Vegas games and those looked like ball sack on release.

 

[The Jackdog]

ill wait to see how the servers work

 

[Rival]

The beta was pretty easy to get into while having a lot of depth. It's not like OG R6 or CS where there is a huge barrier for entry. The core mechanics are pretty familiar for modern shooters, and the depth comes from tactical situations. Teamwork is key.

Thank you maybe I'll give this a try.

 

[nynt9]

More positive than I was expecting after playing the beta to be honest.

The visuals are pretty hideous, but I guess that's not the main appeal? Hit detection and input latency also seemed like a major issue.

IGN said this about the visuals:

And while Siege isn’t the best-looking shooter out there in terms of environmental detail or character models, it includes memorable touches like the arterial blood spray that coats the wall behind your target when you off them. It looks like something truly terrible happened in that spot.

And yeah, the visuals are something I barely noticed in the beta because I was just so razor focused on the gameplay. I was constantly on alert. Doesn't excuse poor visuals, but they weren't an issue for me.

 

[Z3M0G]

So reviewers played with everything unlocked and skipped over the microtransaction system completely. Good on IGN to wait until they check that out before giving final score.

 

[crazyrabbits]

Its something Publishers must have seen in their statistical analyses. The majority of consumers of games like, Call of Duty, Battlefield play online and do not touch the offline portion. Whereas, the consumer of Metal Gear, Assassin's Creed, etc do not touch the online as much.

People just have to accept that games as a package is ending and the 60 dollar value is relative. I do not like to play online but who am I to say that Overwatch is not worth 60 dollars to consumers (heck, even 100 to some, I bet).

Consumers just need to be informed and know what product they are buying.

Easy for you to say. It's telling that you put CoD up as an example and then say "games as a package are ending" when that franchise offers one of the best value propositions for your money, regardless of genre. People shit on the franchise constantly, but it gives you a cinematic campaign in every game, a full-fledged multiplayer mode, one bonus mode (usually Zombies) and/or co-op missions. Not to mention that the games are generally polished experiences as a whole.

I don't mind if a publisher wants to charge $70 or $80 for a game, but at least make the value proposition worth it. They keep hiking up the prices for very little benefit. Eventually, we're going to see a saturation point, and on PC, that point is already getting close by how most games drop significantly in price after release.

You might as well wait a couple months and get this on sale. There's just not enough content here to justify the price point, especially with the knowledge that it has microtransactions layered on top of a full-priced game already.

 

[cackhyena]

The hit detection and ADS slowness are just baffling to me.

 

[Gnome Scat]

Beta was great, I'll definitely pick up the game later this month.

 

[Visualante2]

Read the first few sentences of the PC Gamer review in progress and gave up. I'm so torn about all this stuff. It's great that they're not putting a stamp of approval on the game after 8 hours with the game but I sure as hell don't want to be reading about review event conditions. I guess it's beneficial to someone out there.

edit. Okay the Eurogamer review wasn't too bad but they had a few days with the game.

 

[CyberChulo]

From what I played of the beta, I liked it. Has that Last of Us multiplayer vibe but more technical. But it's not worth $60 in my opinion. I will pick it up when it gets discounted.

 

[potatohead]

Seems cool as an arena competitive game, which is great.

But I really would love to even just see a remastered Raven Shield.

Don't have to throw away the old to play a new type of game, oh well.

 

[Syringe]

8 out of 10 - Gamereactor Sweden

 

[Nightshade]

I think my only gripe with this after playing the beta would be the amount of content (ie No single player) that one gets for $60. However, this was one of two choices for the free game with my GPU purchase and I'm pretty sure this will be it (over AC: Syndicate). So for free, it seems fantastic.

 

[nynt9]

I think my only gripe with this after playing the beta would be the amount of content (ie No single player) that one gets for $60. However, this was one of two choices for the free game with my GPU purchase and I'm pretty sure this will be it (over AC: Syndicate). So for free, it seems fantastic.

Not sure if you dislike AC in general or aren't sold on Syndicate but it's way better than Unity and in fact is probably among my top 3 AC games, they've fixed a lot with the game, but obviously some core issues are still there.

 

[brokenbeans]

I want this but I think it will drop quickly in price, will pick up in the sales.

 

[Nightshade]

Not sure if you dislike AC in general or aren't sold on Syndicate but it's way better than Unity and in fact is probably among my top 3 AC games, they've fixed a lot with the game, but obviously some core issues are still there.

Ugh. I wish you hadn't told me that. I slept soundly for the first time last night in weeks having finally settled on which free game I would pick. I was under the impression that it was another step down from Unity. The last one I played was AC II. Which I've been told, short of missing the stellar sailing mechanics, was a high note to the series.

 

[nib95]

So reviewers played with everything unlocked and skipped over the microtransaction system completely. Good on IGN to wait until they check that out before giving final score.

Can anyone else confirm this? If yes, I might disregard these early reviews till I get a better understanding of how it works with the actual game.