Potential Title Revealed for ‘Rainbow Six’ Sequel

Published 3 years ago by

Rainbow Six Patriots Title

We had already brought gamers the news that a new Rainbow Six title was in development, as leaked by a LinkedIn profile, and now we have even more confirmation to this sequel’s existence. Potentially titled something along the lines of Rainbow Six: Patriots, if two domain registrations by Ubisoft are legitimate, this sequel would see bigger cinematic action and a grittier story.

The domain names in question, Rainbow6Patriots.com and RainbowsixPatriots.com, are currently devoid of content, but their existence points towards Ubisoft revving up a new Tom Clancy Rainbow Six title. In fact, a poster over on the NeoGAF forums has said that logo, art, covers, and rendered game screens are being tossed around to marketing folk.

Unfortunately, the NeoGAF poster does not reveal too much about the assets except that the plot is very timely — it centers around a terrorist group targeting Wall Street — and also features a new third person perspective. The NeoGAF member himself says the art and characters look very similar to what gamers saw earlier this year in Homefront — a title that also explored a war on domestic soil.

We unfortunately don’t have any looks at this promotional art, but if the forum poster is to be believed, we might see some pretty soon, next month in fact.

While fans of Ghost Recon might be excited by this news, it’s only when a character goes into cover (something that isn’t entirely new to the series) that the third person view is available. A similar system was supplied by Deus Ex: Human Revolution, allowing the player to assess threats — something that is very important in Rainbow Six — with a wider perspective.

For now, though, gamers should treat this news as purely speculation and rumor since the NeoGAF poster is using the “it’s not me, it’s a friend” as his source, and since domain registrations don’t always come to fruition. Nonetheless, we still hope that a new Rainbow Six game is in the works, perhaps for one of the new next-gen systems (Wii U, PS4, or Xbox 720) to give gamers an even more intense cinematic experience.

Are you ready for another Rainbow Six? How do you feel about the story points and setting the title is supposedly exploring?

Source: Fusible, NeoGAF

TAGS: PC, PS3, Rainbow Six, Ubisoft

  • ATG

    Rainbow Six: Vegas on Xbox 360 was the 1st game I got into online on my own account. I played for HOURS ON END. I was like 15 and that was my best online experience, no job or responsibilities. Then Battlefield 3 came along…

  • Ken J

    Oh yay, I guess Ubisoft felt they didn’t butcher the Rainbow Six series enough with their tactical-turned-arcade shooters they made with that name attached to them, so now they will make it further less realistic by making it 3rd person. Yay…

    Where are you Redstorm Entertainment, we need you back!!! :'(

    • DOC

      That pretty much sums it up.
      Rainbow Six Vegas was kind of fun, it was a solid turn-off-your-brain-and-shoot kind of shooter, but it certainly doesn’t deserve the name Rainbow Six.

      • Ken J

        I was so mad when those “Rainbow Six” games came out. I really really miss the days of the original Rainbow Six and its sequel Rogue Spear… Those games were freakin’ amazing and was so original. I loved taking the time and drawing out a plan and then seeing if it worked, especially without any friendly casualties. I replayed every level like 10 times to try to accomplish that… Now with the new “Rainbow Six” games, you basically just run through every level killing spawning bad guys that scream gimmmicky dialog with your three man army and your “recovering” health… What a load of crap…

  • Adkon

    Whatever happened to the days when you think of Tom Clancy you get images of Sean Connery and Harrison Ford and dog eared paperbacks. Now everytime I hear the name Tom Clancy I can only imagine sub par games with no originality…..

    • Ken J

      Not to mention even the movies went that way with the Ben Affleck one Sum of All Fears…

      • Adkon

        Uhhhhhhh why remind me of that attrosity…..totally in agreement.

    • Marcus

      I agree with Adkon.

      Ironically, after Tom Clancy sold “Rainbow Six”, the games started to turn into junk. Once they removed the pc strategic elements, the games lost luster and interest.

      Last two Tom Clancy games I played:
      “Ghost Recon: Advanced War Fighter II”
      “Rainbow Six: Raven Shield”

  • ATG

    Wow, seeing these comments I guess I’m the only one who enjoyed Vegas. Probably because I’m from a younger generation and not familiar with the older Rainbow Six games. Although I did wish we could plan out our attack in advance. They should combine the gameplay of the new, with the planning and more tactical approach of the old game.

    I bet they’re appealing to a wider audience now than before, so they’re happy. And before someone tries to correct me on that, I know Ubisoft does the new games.

    • Marcus

      “Rainbow Six” was an awesome strategic shooter. When you plan an attack on a compound or building, filled with terrorists, you can customize up to three infiltration teams. It was cool. You controlled how each of your teammates behaved, and the route they took to enter a camp, building, ship, etc… Yes, I said ship. Some of the campaigns revolved around infiltrating a military destroyer. You had to use stealth and planning.

    • Ken J


      The thing about the originals, was that playing as one of the shooters was only part of the fun. The planning was actually the other. There is a sense of achievement when a plan works exactly right. You can even “spectate” it witout playing at all, let the AI play it based on your plan. That was the ultimate way to test how good your plan is. You plan three teams that you can customize. You had a pool of Operators all with their specialties. And yes, some of them can die in a mission, and if you choose to continue instead of restarting, those that get killed in one mission will remain dead for the rest of the game, meaning you can never pick to have them on your team again. So there are pros and cons to picking the Operators with the best stats early in the game. They also have “Reserve” Operators which are pretty much “mediocre” performers, but those are unlimited in case you lose all of the named Operators during your game.

      There were many situations in the game where actions between the three teams have to be synchronized exactly right. For these, you plan for them to have waypoints and for them to stop and wait for a “Go Code.” So you wait until you see that all the teams are awaiting that code, which tells you they’re all in position outside the doors, or whatever. You give that Go Code and they will then perform a certain action.

      For example, there is a mission that you have to infiltrate a building and rescue hostages. The problem is the terrorists separated the hostages into 2 separate groups, and if they are ever alerted that you are in the building, they will execute the hostages. So you and the other teams have to infiltrate the building, taking out anyone along the way silently, and then pretty much have to breach both rooms with the hostages simultaneously. Where you have to toss flashbangs into the rooms at the same time before clearing the room.

      There are also missions where you can have a sniper take a position and acquire a target, but you have him set to hold fire until you give him a go code to open fire. These missions usually involve some kind of bomb or something where someone can activate something that will end a mission, and you have to time it where your teams breach a room at the same time the sniper takes the shot to kill the guy “at the button” because once you kill one, the others will go in an activate the device…

      And also, there are many different ways you can approach many missions, so the paths you take and the outcomes can vary. With these new ones, they are very linear and things pretty much play out the way they want you to play it out. There are also no real consequences in these new games. When you get shot, you simply wait a while and you’ll be better. In the originals, when you get shot, depending on where you get shot, there are real consequences. For instance, any shot to the chest or head, and you’re dead. You cannot be brought back, your character will not be selectable in the next mission (unless you restart the mission and it plays out differently). Or if you get shot in the leg, your character will actually be limping, your movement speed will be very slow, and your aim will be affected as well. If you get shot in the arm, you can either just have worse accuracy or if the shot is in a more vital area in the arm or you’re hit multiple times, you can actually have that arm disabled to where you either cannot perform functions like reloading, or you cannot fire your weapon at all.

      The locations were also awesome. Since you were fighting international terrorism, the missions take place in all kinds of exotic locations. One was actually on the launch platform of the space shuttle. Another was in Japan, then there are the typical office buildings, a big museum, a cargo ship out in the ocean, train stations, etc. etc.

      Man, you’re making me miss playing these games. I’m pissed that today’s gamers are not patient enough for these games and the developers know games like this will not sell as well as something like Gears of War where everything is so self-explanatory and linear that any idiot can figure it out on the first try…