Talk:Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six

Video games Stub‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

unnamed chat

At the bottom of the page "In Rainbow Six Vegas 2, a NSA agent (Splinter Cell) liases with the main character ,Bishop, through out the game via radio. They also meet face to face in a helicopter cutscene towards the end of the game, but he is revealed to be the traitor, Gabe Nowak." This is a major plot giveaway, I think this should be changed --134.153.182.112 (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The end of this paragraph seems suspicious: "Ubisoft Entertainment insists on continuing the use of his name on all former Clancy-owned franchises (Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and Splinter Cell) as well as using his name on projects that he was never involved in at all (End War, Air Combat) in an attempt to lure in the tactical fans who have long-since abandoned those series. Could it be suggested for this part to be removed until the information could be verified? 74.12.226.145 (talk) 03:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)-K[reply]

^^^ Ubisoft recently bought the "Tom Clancy" name. I believe "Hawx" is the first entirely original title with no input from the man himself: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/82530-Ubisoft-Buys-Tom-Clancy-Name

While I suppose saying "tactical fans have abandonded those series" is difficult to provide any evidence for there is a recent statement by a Ubisoft executive to the effect of they aren't making tactical games anymore because the market is too narrow: http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/51814

195.62.204.175 (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponry

What relevance have these weapons got to the storyline? There seems to be no explanation, and the weapons listed appear to be from the video games, not the novel. (The weapons in the novel being Heckler and Koch MP5s chambered in 10mm JHP, with Sound Suppressors, a Walther 2000 sniper weapons system, and a laser sighted M60 E4.) I suggest that you replace this list with a list of the weapons from the novel or a list with the weapons from the video games series. See the weapons list in the Delta Force: Black Hawk Down page for ideas. Delta Five (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, considering that weapons lists arent allowed as i understand, and agian, the novel only mentions the few guns, MP5/10s, the M60, the Walther and Johnson's custom rifle. and from a logical standpoint, what professional counter-terrorism/hostage rescue team would use a MAC 10 when better equipment is available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.125.92 (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this page is not limitted to the novel, but the Rainbow Six canon in general, then I see no reason to limit any weaponry list to just those of the novel. The book has its own page, and so does each video game. The choice, to me, seems to be whether we need the list at all, as at this point it's so darned big that it serves little purpose. You might as well just link a weapons encyclopedia at this point and be done with it. I'm in favor of mentioning the primary, default loadout of Rainbow for each installment that features a different one, and nothing else. It should kind of go without saying that an organization such as Rainbow could get their hands on any weapon they wanted. 129.171.233.77 (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tango

Tango means Target. It usually refers to terrorist but it's the replacing word of Target. Some sort of argot used by Team Rainbow. --Mato Rei (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROC

Rules of engagements in the case of a SWAT team would call for the surrender of suspects and possibly terrorists but are real counter-terrorist units always on shoot to kill mode like in the series? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.228.0 (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not, and the novel reflects this. The first few games in the series (IIRC - the only one I've played recently was Raven Shield, and I know for certain that this was at least true for that game) also allowed you the option to subdue, rather than kill the targets. They would surrender if you scared them enough, injured them, ect... Vegas and Vegas 2 are much more action-oriented and realism-lacking, so it's no surprise that they also do away with this option. That said, there never really was any incentive to USE the subdue option in the earlier games, so it wasn't all that great. 129.171.233.77 (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Spoiler

"In Rainbow Six Vegas 2, a NSA agent (Splinter Cell) liases with the main character ,Bishop, through out the game via radio. They also meet face to face in a helicopter cutscene towards the end of the game, but he is revealed to be the traitor, Gabe Nowak."

If this going to stay in the article can someone at least allow my addition to the section of "Warning: This section contains a plot spoiler." to remain as it has been taken out.

I and other people I know read about games before we buy them and in less one buys it on the day of release or even if they do buy the game on the day of release but the game was released earlier say in the USA, and someone has posted the end of the game ruining the big twist, as this does it spoils the game. Carbon-Q (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--
>:( I second this. I came here because I just got done with R6:LV and didn't expect an LV2 spoiler in a section about references to other games, so that's really quite frustrating. I'm sticking a spoilers warning back on there. 72.188.237.167 (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--
We cant be the only two that didnt expect a spoiler to be in this page, or even the lack of warning about one! Carbon-Q (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler warnings aren't considered necessary (see WP:SPOILER), but considering that the section referenced isn't supposed to be plot-related, I've removed the spoiler. It wasn't really necessary to the section. --clpo13_(talk) 17:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connections to other games

The programmers of the comming tom clancy title "end war" said that they place the rainbows and the ghots into this game. They play in the same universe! --User:Terrorschnitzel —Preceding comment was added at 03:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I went ahead and added the citation for this along with a brief mention of the tie-ins for R6, GR, and SC into EndWar, but I'd like to add more. It seems to me that the use of the Ghosts, Third Echelon, and Rainbow Six in EndWar suggests that these three organizations DO exist in the same universe, and by extension of the pre-existing link that Rainbow Six had, that they all exist in the Jack Ryan universe. Now, whether or not you should treat them as full-canon novels like the rest of the books Clancy actually wrote, that's another story, but I think it's worth mentioning that, as of this announcement, all the games seem to be taking place in the same universe; one that, at the very least, is connected to the Jack Ryan world, if not actually IN the Jack Ryan world. The problem is, there's always the off-chance that EndWar is the Clancy universe's version of Super Smash Brothers, bringing in all sorts of agencies that don't exist together otherwise for a single, non-cannonical game (Even though we already know Ghost Recon and Third Echelon to be in the same universe, the same is not true of R6). Because of this, anything posted to this nature would be unverifiable speculation, no matter how likely it is.

I'd like to ask that people keep a look-out for any specific mention of whether these organizations have (retroactively been made so that they) always existed together, or whether they're just getting thrown into EndWar for fans' sakes with no intention of making EndWar a part of the Jack Ryan canon. Perhaps someone who's read the novel could shed some light here?129.171.233.77 (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]