Rainbow Six Extraction is a Game I Don't Want to Review

Rainbow Six Extraction is a fine game. For many, it’s an inoffensive co-op shooter that doesn’t really distinguish itself from other similar games and ultimately lives under the shadow of Rainbow Six Siege. I also largely felt this way about this game even with my more positive sentiments around the level design. But while I was prepared to review this title and give it a 3.5/5, I found myself addicted to this game. Sometimes, my views on a game don’t exactly align with my sentiments, and it’s with Rainbow Six Extraction where I find myself at a crossroad.

This isn’t the first game I’ve felt this way about, and it probably won’t be the last. World War Z is another notable title that comes to mind, as I gave that game a 3.5/5 yet that is a game I return to from time-to-time as my go-to Left 4 Dead-like. I even came up with a story idea titled “In Defense of the 7/10 Game” which would explore similar ideas. In my mind, a 3.5/5 score doesn’t sound like a great score, but I don’t think the sentiments I have around that score entirely reflect the experiences I’ve had with some 3.5/5 games even though I think the score is accurate. This idea can also exist at other review scores as well as viewing a game more positively or negatively than the score allotted, but I find 3.5/5 to be the biggest culprit.

While this could simply mean I need a larger point-scale for my reviews or I just need to rewire my brain around that score, I think this idea transcends any review scale. The idea of liking a game despite acknowledging its faults isn’t some Earth-shattering idea, but taking that to the next level by having this situation come up in a review with a score is something that feels a bit more unique. World War Z and Rainbow Six Extraction are fine games, but I also think there’s more to it than that.

Now, the first logical conclusion to come to is seeing the similarities between these games and drawing a connection. It’s not hard to find the connections between WWZ and Extraction as both share a lot of Left 4 Dead DNA. Enemy design (to a degree), co-op play, randomized enemies, and so on. But I don’t think connecting these games together in this manner will be of use as there are too many factors that come into play. There are other games that fit into this category of not matching the score (both in an “underrated” and “overrated” manner) that don’t have these connections. Other factors include nostalgia and specific personal reasons for enjoying these games (which I will get into). Trying to connect these games based on their gameplay similarities won’t work here, so with that said I want to move on to Rainbow Six Extraction in particular.

For my first 15-20 hours, I felt alright about the title. I guess you could say my sentiments aligned with my 3.5/5 score. I went into this game with limited Siege experience and a moderate amount of anticipation for some of its more unique mechanics compared to other Left 4 Dead-likes. The shooting feels great, though that isn’t anything new or unique. While its level design renders different “levels” worthless, I think the way the game is structured allows for way more replayability, options on what I want and do not want to do, and a good length of play. The goo stuff on the ground is a neat mechanic that responds to the style of play, and I think having a wide swath of options on how to handle enemies using stealth or action, gadgets, and character abilities is great.

While I found parts of this game enjoyable, I also found things I initially didn’t like as well. While I dig the concept of characters being able to lose experience points as well as the ability to leave or skip parts of the level, I think this game makes it way too easy to play it safe and back down from a challenge, rendering their “stakes” useless. Their challenges to complete for 100% completion of each area are menial and could be a lot better. The MIA objective is super easy despite it being built up as some high-stakes objective. And at this point in time, I thought their Siege tactics were worthless because of how easy I found the game to be. There are a lot of points both positive and negative I didn’t touch upon, but I just wanted to briefly summarize my thoughts on the first half of my time with the game.

Up-to this point, I was planning on the review and felt pretty confident about my score and whatnot. But at around this point, I changed my perspective on the title. I don’t know what got me to change though I am sure the change was of my own accord; but I started to treat this game differently, and my time with the game got a whole lot better. I was playing this game initially with the co-op shooter mindset. I kept stealth light and minimal, didn’t use gadgets or tactics that much, and mainly just focused on shooting aliens and completing objectives. After this, however, I started to treat the game like a hardcore tactical stealth game. I only played stealthily, I heavily used gadgets and character abilities to my advantage, and I focused on clearing rooms tactically before even thinking about the objective.

This shift in play made a lot of changes to how I thought about this game. For starters, I found this to be the closest thing I think I’ll find to a randomized Far Cry outpost or randomized Splinter Cell experience in the “modern” (last five years) era, which made me appreciate the game’s level design even more. I started to prefer playing this game solo as I had better control over the experience and the stealth felt more consequential and intense. The objective became more trivial to me because by the time I got to them, the area would be clear of enemies, but I also found clearing rooms to be way more fun so this loss didn’t matter all that much to me. The stealth mechanics like its noise indicator HUD and alerted enemy highlights became more significant to me. I appreciated the ability to skip objectives more as there are a few action-only objectives I didn’t want to partake in anymore. There are other parts of this game that did and didn’t change for me, but it was at this moment that I became hooked on Extraction.

For this game, I found a clear dividing line on when my sentiments began to lose alignment with my score, but that isn’t always the case. Sometimes that transition isn’t as clear, sometimes this transition doesn’t matter, and sometimes it happens after I put out a review. This topic leads to another discussion about review score regrets and when a game should be deemed “complete” for review, but that conversation is for another day. It’s this dividing line that turned my writing on this game from a review to a feature, but I think conversation goes a lot deeper than just this dividing line.

Normally for feature blogs such as this one, I usually like to have an answer and to try and cover as many possible scenarios and counterpoints as I can think of. But when thinking about this topic, I mainly came up with questions that either don’t really have an answer or only have answers specific to the individual. I don’t think the answer to the question of why I don’t want to review this game is due to my sentiments not aligning with my score, because that only brings up more questions. So, here are some of the things I thought up as I wrote this blog.

Does something I personally like go into a review even though it’s an unpopular opinion? The logical answer may be yes as it was part of the experience, but if the purpose of a review is to inform the reader of a product, then what good would a review be if it’s about something that not many people will likely enjoy? Sure, you could then argue that there are others who will also enjoy this unpopular opinion and this review will be for them, but I think that leads to the question of how useful a review can be if it can only be applicable to a few versus having a wide appeal to many.

This idea leads to the next question: what is the purpose of a review? Is it to inform and judge a product, or is it to speak of the experience I had with the game? The answer should be both, but that leads to another set of questions. How much of the review should be based on the objective points of the game (what everyone will experience) versus the personal or subjective points of the game (what I personally got out of those objective points of the game)? How much sway should the objective and subjective parts of the review have, especially considering something personal and/or unpopular like nostalgia or preferring solo in a co-op game? I think it’s this question where I see the split for my review and sentiments around Rainbow Six Extraction as I objectively see the game as a serviceable shooter but personally see the game as something for me. While this may seem like the answer, however, I think it leads to more questions.

Should I give a game like Extraction a higher score based on my personal experience even though I had to create a specific set of rules around playing it? I personally think the game’s a blast, but I only found the game to be a blast when I played in a specific way. The question boils down to if my specific way of play should have any say in the score or if I should consider all possible paths of play or even just the most taken path of play, which I think further boils down to objective versus subjective and how much sway each part should have. The answer should be to consider all forms of play, but I think that feeds into the next question.

How do I review a game I had two different experiences with? Now, if the game dictated those two different experiences, then this wouldn’t be a problem. But I dictated the change while the game remained the same, so I wonder how much of the former half versus the latter half should be used for my review. The answer could be both, but having this specific split means that the review is only going to be confused on which experience led to the score given, which leads back to some of the earlier questions I asked about the purpose of the review and what parts of the review should factor into the score. My opinion on certain aspects of the game also changed and can flip flop depending on how I approached the game, so trying to balance a review score on mechanics I have differing but equally valid opinions on could get messy. There are countless other questions around reviews and review scores such as how to review an ongoing game like World of Warcraft, but I mainly want to focus on the questions that apply to this particular scenario.

Now I personally don’t need to worry as much about some of these questions because I’m a one-man-band and it’s my opinion only that is the view of Black Red Gaming. For outlets like Gamespot or IGN, however, these questions could be quite daunting considering the score a reviewer gives is often seen as indicative of the entire outlet even though that shouldn’t be the case.

I’m guessing some of these questions are part of the reason why some outlets now do scoreless reviews. I thought about doing scoreless reviews (which I guess I do with my mini reviews), but I personally believe in having a score for those who just want a quick answer on how good a game is. Yes, it brings up even more questions, but these questions don’t usually fall upon the reader. I also think some of these questions remain with scoreless reviews such as including unpopular opinions, playing in a specific way, subjective versus objective, and so forth.

The ultimate answer to all of this could just be to review it how I want to review it, but these are some of the questions that can come to mind with reviewing games. If these questions start to rattle in my brain as I play a game, then I usually just scrap the review and do something else with the game instead (which is exactly what you are reading here). I may not have a clear answer as to why my sentiments sometimes don’t align with a review score despite believing in said review score, but I think that’s a case-by-case scenario, and I’m at least glad I have control over what I write as a solo writer for when these moments happen. I guess this blog surmounted to nothing but questions, but I hope it’s at least a conversation starter and something to think about.

I get what you mean. Ultimately, fun is an intangible, subjective thing, but reviews are expected to give objective analysis of a product's quality. But fun is supposed to be the point of a game, right?

Take for example the games Dirt Rally, and Gravel. By any objective measure Dirt is better in every possible way. Polished, well designed, everything works like it is supposed too. Gravel is janky, simplistic, cars will go spiraling through the air because they ran over a pebble at the wrong angle. If I were to give them a score it would be Dirt 9, Gravel 7. But I like Gravel way more. It's simple, stupid fun. Sometimes things don't work like you expect, but the added chaos makes things better if you ask me. Who wants a game with no surprises?

@judaspete: Reviewing a video game is weird. Sometimes, the question of whether or not a game should be fun also comes into question with a review. Your Dirt Rally and Gravel point is a great example of the subjective vs objective question, but I also think it brings up an interesting point about triple-a versus smaller budget titles. Often times, triple-a titles are well made and whatnot, but they also tend to be formulaic, safe, and bland. Indies aren't usually as polished as triple-a, but they can be way more exciting because they feel more experimental with new ideas. Do you give props for shooting for these new ideas even if they don't stick? How far do you go with praising a triple-a game's polish before you critique it for its formulaicness? These questions aren't as hard to answer as the others, but they still come up nonetheless.

Personally, I get hung up on weird conundrums like this one. I've been wrestling with it these past few days, so I'll just say what I want to say so I can let it go.

If it's a co-op game, then what you want to do should make sense for your team. If someone's idea might bring the team closer to attaining a substantial win, then that's what counts. That's you creating synergy for your team. If a co-op strategy can be proven out in solo mode in your own time, that's also you creating synergy for your team.

Under normal circumstances, there shouldn't be dissonance between the game your team is playing and the game that you want to play. If you enjoy this hardcore stealth aspect of solo play, that's icing on the cake—maybe even a whole cake—but it shouldn't be mistaken for the game. Ultimately, dyssynergy in structure or player intent is bad game design. A game ought to coalesce and not break its core values or cause philosophical dissension within the team because the difference pieces don't fit together as well as they should.

Incidentally, I'm sorry to hear you're winding down your work on BRG. I haven't been one of your readers, but I'm thinking what I want to do with my own writing. An idea that keeps popping up is to examine a game engine and try to explain how it works using clear, concrete language—but I'm no software engineer—maybe I need to lower my sights, take the bass out of my voice, and broaden my BASE, because right now I'm a PR nightmare.

Anyway, good luck!

This idea leads to the next question: what is the purpose of a review? Is it to inform and judge a product, or is it to speak of the experience I had with the game? The answer should be both, but that leads to another set of questions.

I think where I stand on that issue now is I only read reviews for the author's experience. I'm not sure when it started or if it was just always this way and I never noticed (or because you didn't have much of a choice pre-internet) but I've found that trying to rely on a reviewer to give an assessment of a game's qualities, both good and bad, is super troublesome.

When I read reviews and compare them to my own experience with the game, and I wonder why this and those issues weren't mentioned, it makes me wonder why I would read a review with the idea of getting a qualitative judgement when the focus is so often on the author's experience; "is it fun?", rather than "is it good?". Though they are of course inextricably linked, there's definitely a different feel about reviews who aim for the latter but it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things rather than something I can put to words.

But really, is it a big deal? Not really. It's a whole lot easier these days to find and watch someone playing the game and judge it for yourself, so if reviews are all about the author's personal experiences and preferences rather than trying to lay down what's good and what's bad about a game, that's totally fine.

Also, even though you're not calling this a review, I found it a lot more informative than many actual reviews. I might actually check this game out since the solo stealth thing sounds like something I might enjoy for a few hours.

@ravey: Having good synergy is a good way to critique co-op. Hell, I think it's good for team-based competitive games too (I took what you said and applied it to my time with Hunt Showdown and I would confidently say I have good synergy with my team and thus with the game). I think finding the core value of each genre or game type in this manner could be the way to go for reviewing titles, though it's ultimately up the reviewer on what they believe is worth highlighting and whatnot.

Winding down on the writing sucks because of how long I've been doing it for (I've been writing for about 5 1/2 years), but there are some benefits to switching my writing to pure hobby and I believe I can still find just as much enjoyment out of the PR field. In regards to your idea about examining game engines, just do I did: go for it. It doesn't have to be great, but you do have to start. I didn't even enjoy writing when I first started because all the writing I ever did was for school, but it was when I just said screw it and started was when I decided that this is what I wanted to do with my life (which recently changed but PR and journalism aren't all that different). Get whatever idea you have in your idea in writing, proofread, and publish it. Don't expect greatness, but with passion and time you'll get there.

@dijidiji: The author's personal experience is a solid way to look at a review because they can have their own personal attachments or unique observations that gives more flavor to the review. Fortunately, someone like me can review in this style because I'm a one-man band, but where this idea gets tough is with larger outlets where the reviewer has to represent the outlet. Another place where this can get a bit funky is with factors that only certain individuals face (the IGN Prey review for example).

One of the interesting points you bring up is the idea around if a game is fun and/or good, which could be a whole separate blog in and of itself. Does a game have to be fun to be good? I believe the answer is no, but a lot of people say otherwise. Some of this depends on how far down we go with calling something a video game. I think there are great narrative games, but some of those "games" blur the line on whether or not they are a game with how little the levels of interactivity are, but that too is a different topic for a different day.

At the end of the day, I tend to agree with you on the fact that it's easier to watch gameplay and make a judgement call from there. You know what you want more than any reviewer in the world, so at best you can just hope for a reviewer to hit on as many points that matter to you as possible.

With just about any game I play, I take notes jotting down the positives and negatives and I usually go into it with the idea of reviewing it. My reviews tend to lean towards the more objective "is it good?" type of stuff. If I find that I have personal experiences or a personal opinion that I believe is more interesting, then that is where I write a feature (which is what ended up happening here). Maybe I should just take the personal experience/opinion thing and just make a review out of it anyways, though that also means running through the questions I pose in this blog. Either way, I usually have more fun writing features because they are more personal and spur more interesting conversations, so who knows if I'll ever review again.

Usually, my mistake is just waiting far too long to go back to a game loop and having no idea where I am, and what I was doing.

Excellent point, waadam. Unfortunately, I suspect that you're a bot.

@brg:

I appreciate the support. My own team game and solo efforts hasn't been great.

Haven't played Hunt Showdown. Apparently Crytek USA envisioned it as a cooperative game, but Crytek Germany turned it into a competitive game? I hate that. Though maybe I'll go back and read your review instead of supposedly being angry at the Germans for dropping the ball for easy greenbacks.

Speaking of odd suppositions—I'm going to try an experiment to solve my issue at hand.

WITH HYPNOSIS!

This will work!

If it doesn't work, this will be very embarrassing for me.

Okay, I'm going to pretend there are really only 3 game mode pillars on a set of blueprints:

Cooperation, Action, Strategy.

Now I'll imagine Story, Puzzle, Freedom and Competition belong somewhere. But, gosh, where? This is where games start to look fuzzier, as these pillars seem like shadows of the primary pillars rather than real load-carriers. And I have no idea where this is going. I'll consider entertaining this premise while I'm spinning my wheels—and this is where my eyes will turn purple—engage blind faith, mind! Ahhh!

Now, I'll pay attention and watch intently.

Check the case files.

And then I'll go about my day.

I promise.

This is going to work, right, drg?

drg says yes—okay.

And

BOOM!